Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: A short essay on WWII, Mexican American War, and US Civil War

  1. #1
    |LGA.3rd|General Clausewitz Member Kaiser of Arabia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Munich...I wish...
    Posts
    4,788

    Default A short essay on WWII, Mexican American War, and US Civil War

    (ok I had to write an essay on WWII, 3 major battles, 3 heros and villains, new technologies, how it started, and it's results. so here it is. Mex American war is next post, then Ill post US Civ war when im done. please tell me what you think)

    Conflict Focus Sheet
    World War Two
    Scott Piazza

    World War Two was the largest war of the twentieth century, spanning six years and about fifty-five million casualties. Starting in 1939, the war lasted from the Nazi invasion of Poland to the surrender of Japan in August of 1945. The war pitted the Germans, beaten and bloodied after World War One, and oppressed by the terms in the Treaty of Versailles, and the Italians under the Fascist government of Benito Mussolini, and the Empire of Japan; against the British Empire, France, the Soviet Union, Poland, Canada, Australia, and later the United States.
    In 1932, Adolf Hitler, leader of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (NAZI), took power in Germany, being elected Chancellor. He quickly began building up the German military, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. He quickly reoccupied the Rhineland, the area between the French boarder and the Rhine River, again, in violation of the Versailles treaty. By 1938, Germany had the largest and most powerful military in the world. With the aid of Heinz Guderian, Hitler invented a military doctrine he called the Blitzkrieg, which means Lightning War. Then, in 1938, Hitler ordered prisoners, dressed in Polish Uniforms, shot near the polish boarder. He then used this action to claim that the Polish had attacked Germany, and therefore, with the support of the German people, invaded Poland.
    With the help of the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany crushes Poland. Meanwhile, Hitler orders his army to invade France, marching through Belgium and capturing Paris. In a mere six weeks, France was firmly under Hitler’s control. Also capturing the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway, and with the Anschluss of Austria in 1938, the vast majority of Europe was under Nazi Germany or Nazi Friendly nations (such as Italy and Slovakia). The Italian army in North Africa was fighting the British army, and was soon crushed by the British. The Germans sent the elite Afrika Corps to aid them, under the command of General Erwin Rommel.
    America was Neuteral at this time, although they did secretly supply the English with weapons and ships. However, on December 7th, 1941, the Japanese changed that. Striking the naval facilities at Pearl Harbor, the Japanese won a crushing blow against the Americans. The next day, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, president of the United States, declared war on Japan. Germany, in turn, declared war on the United States. The United States struck back at the Japanes quickly, and also sent men to aid the British army in Egypt against Rommel. Earlier that year, the Soviet Union had declared war on the Germans, and the full scale of World War Two was about to be seen.
    In World War II, many new technologies were employed by the military forces of the world. One of the most important and evident technologies first used in World War Two was the Atomic bomb. First developed by American scientists in the 1940s, it was first used in conventional warfare in August of 1945, when the first bomb used on a civilian target was dropped on the Japanese city of Nagasaki. However, previous to that, the United States military tested them in the Nevada and New Mexican desert. After World War II, nuclear weaponry was never used in war again.
    Another new technology used in World War II was the semi-automatic and automatic (assault) rifles. Used widely by the Americans in the form of the M1 Garand and M1A1 Carbine, almost every nation envolved used some form of Automatic or semi-automatic rifle. The Germans, having invented the first Assault rifle in the form of the Stg-44, distributed them in small amounts to their elite Waffen-SS and Falschirmjaeger divisions. The Germans also had several semi-automatic rifles, including the Gewehr 43. However, the vast majority of rifles used in WWII were bolt action rifles, the same that were used in the First world war. An example of these rifles were the Mauser K98, Lee-Enfeild No4, Springfield 1903, and the Mosin Nagant 1891.
    One of the first major conflicts of the war was Fall Weiß, the German invasion of Poland in September, 1939. German strategists came up with the plan consisting of three attacks; the main attack from the German heartland into mainland Poland, a smaller attack from Eastern Prussia, and yet a smaller attack by Slovak allies from the south. All three assaults were to converge on the Polish capital city of Warsaw, and the Polish army was to be encircled and destroyed on the Vistula.
    On August 31st, 1939, Operation Himmler, a German propaganda stunt to gain a Cassus Belli on Poland, took place. Under the direction of Reinhard Heydrich, several convicts were taken to a radio station near the Polish border and shot. Then, the Nazi’s broadcast that the Polish army had attacked the German borders. Even though none of the convicts were wearing Polish military uniforms, the German populace believed the Nazi’s, and the next day, September 1st, 1939, the attack on Poland began.
    Fifty-six German divisions, numbering 1.8 million men, stormed across the border. The smaller polish force was forced to withdraw from the borders, after heavy fighting. After a crushing defeat at the Bzura River, the Polish army began to withdraw torwards Warsaw. They were expecting an allied counterattack to relieve them. However, on September 17th, 1939, the Russian Red Army invaded the easternmost regions of Poland. Many Polish soldiers tried to evacuate to neutral Romania, where they planned to regroup. Two Polish armies were crippled at the Battle of Tomaszów Lubelski from the 17th to the 20th of September. The city of Lwów fell on September 22nd.Warsaw finally fell on September 28th, and by October 1st, Poland was firmly in German and Soviet hands.
    Poland had lost over 65,000 men fighting, and 640,000 Polish soldiers were captured by the Germans or the Soviets. 120,000 Polish soldiers were able to withdraw to Romania and Hungary, and around 20,000 escaped to Latvia and Lithuania. The majority of these men regrouped in France. The aftermath of the conquest was much more brutal. The fighting destroyed major Polish urban areas, and following massacres took the lives of 6 million poles, over one-fifth of the country’s population. The soviets also killed up to 1.8 million Polish citizens, often sending them to forced labor camps, imprisoned, or simply murdered (ex. The Katyn Massacre).
    Shortly after Operation Fall Weiß, Operation Fall Gelb took place. About 5 months after the fall of Poland in the east, 141 German divisions, along with 7,378 guns, 2,445 tanks, and 5,446 aircraft, number 3,350,000 men, attacked France, Belgium, and the Netherlands. This invasion, starting in April of 1940, was to be a monumental German success.
    The French high command expected a recreation of the German plan in World War I. They fortified their borders, known as the Mangiot Line. To counter this, the German high command came up with a plan that rested on the conquest of the Netherlands and Belgium. However, when a German transport crashed in Belgium and the plan was captured, the German high command decided to scrap it. The final invasion plan, Fall Gelb, was suggested by General Erich von Manstein. His plan was to break through the Ardennes, the center of the French and Allied Lines (numbering 2,862,000 men, including 13,974 guns, 3,384 tanks, and 3,099 aircraft).
    On May 10th, 1940, Germany launched Fall Gelb. During the night, German Forces occupied Luxemburg and in the morning, Army Group B (Consisting of 29 ½ divisions, including 3 armored) launched a feint offensive into Belgium and the Netherlands. Fallschirmjäger from the 7th Fleiger and 22nd Air Landing divisions captured both Fort Eben-Emael and the major road to Rotterdam. The allied command fell for it, and sent many of their men to reinforce the Belgians and Dutch.
    Soon the Luftwaffe gained Air Superiority over the Allies, and the Germans were able to capture 7 major airfields around Rotterdam. Their attempts to capture the Hague ended in complete failure, and on May 10th, the airfields were recaptured by the two Dutch reserve infantry divisions. The French army tried to meet up with the remnants of the Dutch forces, however, not understanding the German’s intention, failed to prevent the 9th Panzer division from capturing Rotterdam on May 14th.
    By May 13th, Army Group A had smashed through the Ardennes line and had captured river crossings as far south as Sedan on the Meusse River. The German’s carpet bombed a small corridor where the French army was located. The French Infantry there (from the 55th Infantry Division) were completely routed.
    On May 16th, both General Erwin Rommel and General Heinz Guderian (often hailed as the best generals of the war), in an act of open insubordination, charged their panzer divisions in an act often hailed as the first use of the Blitzkreig. Guderian was able to push 80 kilometers west of Sedan, while Rommel was able to move about 100 kilometers west of his bridgehead at Dinant. Rommel was nowhere to be found at this point in time, however, General von Kliest visited Guderian the next day, and in a fit of rage relieved him of his duties. However, this push had surprised the French, and now their government was taken over by a wave of defeatism.
    On the 18th, Rommel was able to capture Cambrai by merely feinting an armored attack. On the 19th, the German high command was very confident of their victory, and the next day they were able to capture the Somme River at Abbeville, isolating the allied forces to the north. By the 20th, the 2nd Panzer division was within eyesight of the Channel.
    On the 21st of May, British Expeditionary forces attacked the German Panzer divisions in the Battle of Arres. The Panzer’s could not withstand the heavily armored British Matilda tanks, and the British were able to halt the German offensive. The next day, however, German reinforcements were able to press the British back to the Vimy ridge.
    On May 26th, the remnants of the British army were evacuated at Dunkirk, leaving the French to fend for themselves. Belgium surrendered on May 28th. On June 10th, the French government evacuated Paris, and relocated in Bordeaux. Finally on June 25th, the French officially surrendered to the Germans.
    The German army lost about 27,074 men to death, with slightly over 110,000 wounded, and 18,000 missing. Allied casualties were 290,000 French killed and wounded, and 68,111 British, 23,350 Belgian, 9,779 Dutch and 6,092 Poles killed or wounded. Total allied losses including the capture of the French army amounted to 2,292,000.
    After securing France and Poland, Hitler turned his sights on his former ally, the Soviet Union. In June of 1941, in quite possibly the worst military blunder in the history of mankind, Hitler sent 3.2 million men across the Soviet border in a daring plan known as Unternehmen Barbarossa (Operation Barbarossa). The German forces pushed to the Volga river, where they met the soviets at one decisive battle: Stalingrad.
    In late August, 1942, Heersgruppe Süd reached the Volga river to the north of the city of Stalingrad, bearing the name of the head of the Soviet Union, Josef Stalin. On August 23rd, a German firebombing campaign of the city left thousands of civilians dead and the city in ruins. The Soviet 62nd army formed defensive positions amongst the rubble. The Germans attacked. Fighting in the city was brutal. Every inch of ground gained by either side was heavily paid for in gallons of blood. The average life expectancy of a newly arrived soviet soldier during this phase of the battle was a mere few hours.
    The fighting continued. The Mamayev Kurgan, a prominent hill above the city, was bitterly contested. It changed hands several times. Thousands of men died trying to take it. In fact, in one day alone, the soviets lost an entire division of 10,000 men attacking the hill. A soviet platoon under the command of Yakov Pavlov fortified a large apartment in the middle of the city. This apartment building is known as Pavlov’s house. The soviets fought off several German attacks on the building using their heavy fortifications. After three months of this fighting, the Germans pushed the Soviets back to the Volga River, capturing eighty percent of the city. However, the battles for the Mamayev Kurgan and Red October factory continued fiercely as ever, although hope of relief for the soviet forces was slim.
    On November 19th, 1942, the Soviet counterattack began. They attacked the Romanian forces to the north of the city, shattering them in a day. The next day, another Soviet counterattack began to the south of Stalingrad crushed another Romanian army there. The Soviet forces surrounded the city of Stalingrad, trapping 250,000 German, Romanian, Hungarian, and Italian soldiers in the city. About 50,000 German soldiers were able to escape the encirclement. After a failed attempt to supply the troops trapped in Stalingrad, the German high command realized that the soldiers trapped in the city would never leave Stalingrad alive. The Soviets began an attack on the city, trying to shrink the pocket. A Soviet attack on the German forces near Rostov forced General von Manstein to withdraw out of the caucuses, sealing the fates of the men at Stalingrad.
    The German Commander at Stalingrad, Generalfeldmarschal Paulus, surrendered after long and brutal urban combat. Only 91,000 men of the 500,000 Germans were left alive to surrender. And of those men, only 6,000, including Paulus, ever saw Germany again. The rest of them died in the Soviet gulags. Axis losses, including those killed in the battles around the city, totaled 850,000, although only 400,000 of those were German. Soviet losses are estimated to be as low as 790,000 but as high as 1,750,000, including the many civilians killed in the fierce street fighting of the battle. This defeat, although a pyrrhic victory for the Soviets, marked the beginning of the end for the Third Reich.
    After the battle of Stalingrad, it was apparent to the Germans that the Soviets were a clear and present threat. After decimating the German field army at Stalingrad, the Soviets pushed westwards, and eventually captured the city of Kursk. This created a bulge of approximately 150km in the German line, and the German high command wanted to eliminate this threat. Meanwhile, Stalin would be willing to do anything to crush the Fascist invaders, and he would attempt to do so on Hell’s Battlefield: Kursk.
    The German high command came up with Operation Citadel, for an attack on the city of Kursk. Kursk was at the center of the bulge, and simply put, Hitler wanted it. The attack was originally planned for May, but due to several setbacks the attack happened on July 4th, 1943. The German army, consisting of 800,000 men (including 3 brand new SS-Panzer divisions; 1st SS Leibstandardt- Adolf Hitler, 2nd SS Panzer Das Reich, and the 3rd SS Panzer Der Totenkopf), began an attack on Soviet entrenchments in an action that demonstrated the folly of modern warfare. The attack plan called for two large attack forces to attack the north and south ends of the Kursk Bulge, and for around 7 divisions to assault the center. 28 divisions would be held in reserve. The soviet defenses, consisting of well over one million men, had dug fortifications and had placed hundreds of anti-tank guns behind them.
    On July 5th, the real battle began. In the early hours of the morning a massive Soviet Artillery barrage began, with hundreds of guns firing at the German positions, and also many of “Stalin’s Organs” field rocket launchers. The Soviet Air Force attempted to destroy the Luftwaffe on the ground, but failed miserably. The German attack began shortly after, and the German tanks were able to maul the inferior Soviet T-34s at a distance. The soviet anti-tank guns began to destroy German tanks, which became mobile crematoriums for their highly trained crews (thanks to Brigadier Shelford Bidwell for that quote). On July 15th, the attack on Orel began, and the Soviet army pushed the Germans back to the Hegan line. The Soviets soon attacked and took Kharkov as well, and by August 20th, all German forces in the area were forced to withdraw.
    By August 22nd, all fighting drew to a close. The German casualties numbered some 198,000 men, and approximately 300 tanks. The Soviets lost up to 862,000 men in the battle, and 330 tanks. Although taking far more casualties, this was a soviet victory, as the German forces were pushed from two major cities along the Eastern Front.
    World War Two was definitely a war of heroes and villains, but exactly who were the heroes and who were the villains is hard to define. One of the known villains of the war is definitely Josef Stalin. His brutal tactics led to the deaths of 27 million Russians during the Second World War. His ego also sacrificed over a million men to die at Stalingrad, simply because the city bore his name. He was also guilty of war crimes, too many to count. Amongst these is the Katyn Massacre, where 22,000 Poles were taken into the Katyn Forest and executed. Also, he allowed the mass rapes and pillaging in captured German cities to continue. There is no way this man was a hero of the war, although he arguably won it for the Allies.
    Another obvious villain would be Gregorai Zhukov. A distinguished soviet general, he also had a hand to play in the brutal tactics at battles such as Stalingrad. He once said “If we come across a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as if it weren’t there.” It’s obvious that this man is deranged. Such tactics cost the lives of countless soviet soldiers, men that need not have died. He also was the commander that was in control of the Soviet forces when they captured Berlin, brutally pillaging and raping the entire city.
    Another person widely viewed as a villain of World War Two is Josef Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda minister. Although he did very little personally, his speeches inspired the followers of the Nazi party into giving their lives to defend the Fatherland. He was a fanatical supporter of Hitler, and was also a brilliant manufacturer of propaganda. In the last days of the war, he had his children poisoned and then ordered his SS Guards to execute him. He was then cremated, his charred remains found by Soviet forces when they captured Hitler’s bunker.
    One of the definite heroes of the war was Generalfeldmarschal Erwin Rommel. He is often hailed as the last of the knights, and was one of the most chivalrous and brilliant commanders the world has ever seen. A veteran of World War One, Erwin Rommel was given command of a Panzer Division during the invasion of France, in which he proved himself as an excellent commander. Soon after, he was given command of the Deutsche Afrika Corps. Although he initially led them to victory, he was defeated by superior British and American forces at El Alamein. Becoming ill, he retired to Germany. After losing the battle for Normandy, and being discovered as a member of the conspiracy to kill Adolf Hitler (he was really just someone who knew about it, he didn’t actually take part in it) he was forced to commit suicide. Even his enemies honored him, and often viewed him as a great man, if not only a great commander. He is known for his humane treatment of Prisoners of War and of his own men. He is one of the greatest men to fight during the war, maybe even in history.
    Heinz Guderian was a military theorist and general for the German army during World War Two. Although not as chivalrous as Rommel, he is often hailed as one of the greatest military minds of the war. He is credited with the Blitzkrieg, and the German armor doctrine was based totally on his works, most notably Achtung Panzer. He was also one of the few German commanders not charged with any war crimes. A great mind, he is one of the main reasons for Germany’s initial successes in World War Two.
    Another hero of the war was General George Patton, Jr. A brilliant American commander, he led to the ultimate defeat of Germany in France. Although some of his methods were a bit unorthodox, he was respected by almost everyone he met, and was an accomplished military commander. It is widely believed that if the Allied High command had listened to him and pressed towards Moscow immediately after the fall of Berlin, the Cold War could have been prevented. Instead, he was killed by a drunk driver in Berlin in 1945.Probably the best American commander of the war, Patton is one of the most respected military minds of our age.
    The Axis powers lost the war, and much all of the Prussian and Silesian lands were given to Soviet Poland. Also, German was split in half, a result of the Soviet occupation of East Germany. Heavy restrictions were placed on all the nations in the axis powers, including military restrictions that exist to this day. Another side effect of the war was the cold war, the conflict between the Soviet Union and the Western Allies. This included the Korean and Vietnam wars, ultimately claiming the lives of millions of people.
    As a result of the war, America became the recognized superpower of the world. Not only did it’s military aid save the Allied Forces, but the financial aid paid to rebuild Europe was instrumental in the rebuilding of Germany and France after the war. Also, this led to friction with the Soviet Union, which led to the ultimate downfall of the Soviet union later in the 20th century.
    World War Two was the biggest, and arguably the worst war ever fought. It is living proof of the folly of modern warfare, and it shows the destruction and devastation that war can cause. A generation of people was lost to the war, and much of Europe has never recovered from the war. Even to this day, the scars left by the Nazi party are still deep within Germany, and many Europeans try to forget their past; making it destined to happen again. The fighting was fierce, and often led to many civilians casualties, it truly was as Rommel once said, “In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it.” This war marked the last great war ever fought, no war reached it’s sheer magnitude ever again, and with the deaths of over 55 million people, it may be good that no war has, and that most likely, no war shall.

    Why do you hate Freedom?
    The US is marching backward to the values of Michael Stivic.

  2. #2
    |LGA.3rd|General Clausewitz Member Kaiser of Arabia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Munich...I wish...
    Posts
    4,788

    Default Re: A short essay on WWII, Mexican American War, and US Civil War

    Conflict Focus Sheet
    Scott Piazza
    June 6, 2005

    The Mexican-American war was a short conflict between the growing United States and Mexico. It started in 1846; about ten years after the Lone Star Republic declared it’s independence from Mexico in 1835. After it’s annexation into the United States in 1836, the border territories between the new state of Texas and Mexico were heavily disputed. Tensions between the United States and Mexico grew even worse after the Mexican government refused to sell Alta California and Nuevo Mexico to the United States.
    The declaration of war finally came in 1846. While the United States claimed that the border between Texas and Mexico was the Rio Grande River, the Mexicans insisted that it was the Nueces River. The United States government ordered General Zachary Taylor to march his troops between the two rivers, and he continued to march south to the Rio Grande where he began to build Fort Brown. The conflict began on April 24th, 1846, when Mexican troops attacked a small amount of US troops on the border. After several other clashes and the battles of Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma, the United States Congress formally declared war on May 13th. Ten days later, Mexico would officially declare war on the United States.
    After the declaration of war, the US attacked Mexico on all possible fronts. The US Navy landed in California and claimed it for the United States. Meanwhile, US troops under Samuel Kearny captured Santa Fe, New Mexico, for the United States. The main attack force was led by Taylor though, and it pushed across the Rio Grande into Mexico.
    They met a Mexican force of about 10,000 men at Monterrey. Although numerically inferior with only 6,000 regulars and one antique cannon, the American forces pressed onwards in an attempt to capture the city. After three days of fighting, the howitzer opened fire, hurtling shells into the central square of Monterrey, sending the locals into a panic. However, on the third day of battle, a final American push to take the city was met with fierce resistance from the San Patricios regiment of Mexican infantry (Irish Mercenaries). Almost routed, the US Army began a hasty and disorganized retreat. In a burst of inspiration, General Taylor ordered his one howitzer to fire upon the enemy indiscriminately, and the Mexican forces, for some reason, surrendered to Taylor. About four hundred fifty Americans were killed, and about one hundred less Mexicans lost their lives.
    After the capture of Monterrey, Mexican President Generalissimo Antonio López de Santa Anna led an army north to meet the United States army. He met them at Buena Vista. His army, numbering 20,000 men, met the 4,500 man American force in battle, and was defeated by a large margin. During the battle, which started on February 23rd, 1847, Santa Anna’s men attacked in a disorganized mess, and was quickly driven off time and time again. At the end of the battle, only 760 Americans were dead or wounded, compared to over twice that number of Mexicans who never left the fields of Buena Vista. This defeat soundly marked the beginning of the end of the Mexican American War.
    Meanwhile, a large US Force numbering 12,000 men, faced a mere 3,000 Mexican soldiers at the siege of the Mexican port city of Veracruz. Under the command of General Winfield Scott, the US Force encircled the Mexican city, and the siege began. Although the Mexican artillery opened fire on the US positions, their fire was ineffective against the experienced American troops. Meanwhile, the Americans began to fire their Congreve Rockets into the defenses, starting a fire that drove the Mexican gunners from their posts. Several days of such fighting occurred, and 3 days after the siege began, on May 25th, the Mexicans surrendered to the superior American forces.
    After that battle, the American Forces quickly occupied the Mexican capital, and Santa Anna surrendered on February 2nd, 1848. He ceded most of the American west to the US at the time, in return for a few million dollars to pay for the war. The Mexican American war was over. Of the 60,000 American troops involved in the war, 13,000 never returned home, although less than 1,800 died from battle inflicted wounds. Mexican casualties numbered greater than 25,000.
    One of the heroes of the war was General Zachary Taylor. His superior tactics had led to a relatively painless defeat of the Mexicans, and although beating the Mexican army was no real chore, he did save many lives because of his direct, yet sometimes haphazard, tactics.
    Another hero of the war was Colonel Robert E. Lee. Serving at Veracruz, he gained notoriety for his extremely brave performance in the war, and although his true genius would be shown thirteen years after the end of the war, he is definatly a hero of the war.
    A Mexican hero of the war was Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. Although he can be considered a scoundrel and a villain by Americans, he wished for little more than a strong Mexico, anything a true patriot would want of his nation. Although he is definatly one of the worst military commanders ever (eg. The Alamo), he did try, and he must be given credit for that, even if he was the Burnside of the Mexican army.
    The US won the war by a large margin, and they gained humongous amounts of land from Mexico as a result. Almost the entire American west was gained during and after that war, including, ironically, New Mexico. Also it showed that America wasn’t a winner-take-all nation, as we did pay Mexico a ridiculous amount of money for the war. All in all, it increased America’s power.

    Why do you hate Freedom?
    The US is marching backward to the values of Michael Stivic.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Senior Member econ21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    9,651

    Default Re: A short essay on WWII, Mexican American War, and US Civil War

    I read the WW2 one. It's very informative - I did not know Patton died in a road accident in 1945, for example.

    A couple of quibbles. I don't think the Afrika Korps was an elite formation, unless you want to say all panzer and light divisions were elite. Its successes are a tribute to its leadership and the Wehrmacht's fighting prowess generally, rather than any elite quality of its men or material. Second, are you sure the Germans had the largest army in 1938? I would guess the Russian army was larger.

    On the technology, I think highlighting the A-bomb and assault rifle is ok if you are looking for real innovations, but they did not affect the war that much. I would have highlighted instead the role of the tank and especially airpower. These technologies were more important in determining the way the war was fought and although they had been developed in WW1, really came into their own in WW2.

    I felt your political opinions rather swayed your assignment of German heroes and Russian villains. I am not sure I would criticise Stalin for sacrificing men to hold Stalingrad. [Hitler might be better charged with that folly.] It was as good a place as any to make a stand and the Russian strategy of tying down the 6th Army in the city and then encircling seems pretty smart. I don't know if this was Stalin or Zhukov's idea, but I would give them some of the credit for winning the decisive battle of the war.

    Moreover, when looking for heroes and villains, I would judge people for the moral quality of their actions rather than their military proficiency. Guderian and even Rommel, with that lovely quote "just kill something", do not seem to qualify on that criteria. There's be no shortage of villains - Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich, Mengler etc. Heroes may be in shorter supply, although I have some admiration for Allied leaders such as Churchill and De Gaulle who were determined to fight on against the odds for liberty. More properly, there are less prominent people who did exceptionally good things - for example, Oskar Schindler and others who saved Jews. If you want to know more, I believe Israel has done a good job in recording such people.

    I'm very sceptical of the "drive on to Moscow in 1945" argument. Politically, it was infeasible - there's no way the Western public would have stood for it. Militarily, it would have been as costly as the Eastern Front. It's rather strange to lament the casualities of war and push for its extension. I also think you need to add the USSR to the US as emerging as a superpower in the war. Smart people always knew America was strong in 1941 (Churchill on hearing Germany declared war on America: "oh, so we have won after all"). By constrast, Russia looked ripe for the taking in 1941 but claimed half of Europe in 1945.
    Last edited by econ21; 06-07-2005 at 09:50.

  4. #4
    Member Member Productivity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Ulsan, South Korea
    Posts
    1,185

    Default Re: A short essay on WWII, Mexican American War, and US Civil War

    Is this for our own interest, or would you like edits done of them? I'm fine iwth either, just need to know should I read it in my editor mindset or my mindset for absorbing information?

  5. #5
    Von Uber Member Butcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Manning the barricades
    Posts
    159

    Default Re: A short essay on WWII, Mexican American War, and US Civil War

    By 1938, Germany had the largest and most powerful military in the world.
    This is not true, incidentally. German re-arnamament and recruitment only got started in earnest in 1939, and It's army was still smaller than the Soviet Union's, or France's for that matter.
    - I'm sorry, but giving everyone an equal part when they're not clearly equal is what again, class?

    - Communism!

    - That's right. And I didn't tap all those Morse code messages to the Allies 'til my shoes filled with blood to just roll out the welcome mat for the Reds.

  6. #6
    Ming the Merciless is my idol Senior Member Watchman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    7,967

    Default Re: A short essay on WWII, Mexican American War, and US Civil War

    Undoubtly true, save perhaps with certain reservations about France - Germany had had a demographic superiority in WW1 already, which the French had only been able to counter by raising troops from their overseas colonies.

    However, size most definitely isn't everything, as witnessed in the way the Germans could obliterate entire Soviet armies with dizzying ease during their advance. (A German staff officer's comment: "at the beginning we thought the enemy could send some 130 divisions against us; we have already destroyed a greater number..." or thereabouts.) The Germans had some quite superior military doctrines going, and the only ones even close to matching them - the Soviets, who'd originally invented the armoured blitzkrieg and whom the Germans had closely worked with - could not due to political reasons (ie. Stalin had decided to throw the innovators to the camps). In equioement they had no overly major advantages; indeed, even many French tanks could match their opponents in performance, and the T-34 came as a notoriously rude surprise, and while they made some advances in small arms most of those fell well into the category "too little, too late" and often both (as with the StG 44, introduced at a point when German defeat was only a matter of time). Mind you, they unwittingly made the groundwork for many postwar developements while they were at it.
    No, the trick lay in superior techniques of employing what they had. Once their enemies got into the program, negating that advantage, and brought the full weight of their industrial superiority to bear the Germans were pretty much screwed for good.

    Incidentally Kaiser, might I suggest you drop off the meaning-laden, and infamously subjective, term "heroes" and instead replace it with a far more neutral "prominent/important personages" or somesuch ? Avoids unnecessary messes...
    "Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. --- Proof of the existence of the FSM, if needed, can be found in the recent uptick of global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. Apparently His Pastaness is to be worshipped in full pirate regalia. The decline in worldwide pirate population over the past 200 years directly corresponds with the increase in global temperature. Here is a graph to illustrate the point."

    -Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

  7. #7
    Humanist Senior Member Franconicus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Trying to get to Utopia
    Posts
    3,482

    Default Re: A short essay on WWII, Mexican American War, and US Civil War

    Kaiser,

    Excellent article. Just a few remarks:

    Start of WW2: it officially started in 1939. However there were other military conflicts which were before and are in a close context: Japanese-Soviet war , Japanese Cina, Italy Ethopia

    Name of the Nazi party was NSDAP

    Hitler was elected but abolished democracy immediately.

    In 1938 the German army was amazingly weak. Most of the tanks that overrun France were built in the occupied CSR in 1939.

    Poland: Polish made a strategic mistake. They place their armies along the border without deep formation. When the tanks broke through they had no mobile reserves to stop them. The French made the same mistake 9 months later. The Polish also underestimated the Germans.

    Denmark and Norway were not part of the France campaign. They were earlier with the goal to secure the iron transports from Sweden and to prevent the British from landing there.

    You should mention the war in the Atlantic and the battle of England.

    Soviet Union: They did not declare war on Germany. Germany attacked them without warning. Main objective was Moscow. However, the Germans lost the battle of Moscow late 1941. Then they changed the targets to Stalingrad and Caucasus. This change surprised the Soviet leaders, who had placed their armies round Moscov. So the German invasion was successful in the beginning.
    Battle of Stalingrad: Most important fact was that the Soviets did not use all their forces to stop the Germans but had a strong strategic reserve. They used it when the Germans were stop for their counterattack. The Russian attack was a very good copy of the German attacks before.
    The Soviet victory was not a Phyrrus one. They had big losses but they really could afford.
    Inventions: Maybe you could mention the radar, rockets, jet planes, …

    Before Barbarossa Hitler also invaded Yugoslavia and Greece.

    German Africa Corps was not elite.

    Kursk: Soviet new every detail of the German plans and they had enough time to prepare.

    World War Two was definitely a war of heroes and villains Why? What is your definition?

    After the war:
    US and Soviet Union were the superpowers
    Why do you think many Europeans want to forget the past?

  8. #8
    Crusading historian Member cegorach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    2,523

    Default Re: A short essay on WWII, Mexican American War, and US Civil War

    Correcting corrections


    In 1938 the German army was amazingly weak. Most of the tanks that overrun France were built in the occupied CSR in 1939.

    >>>>>>>>>>>> Not most, but a large part nonetheless.

    Poland: Polish made a strategic mistake. They place their armies along the border without deep formation. When the tanks broke through they had no mobile reserves to stop them.


    >>>>>>>>>>>> NO. About 12 infantry divisions ( + 1-2 cavalry brigades and around 1 tank brigade supported with fighter and bomber brigades ) were the reserves ( armies 'Prusy', 'Wyszkow' and a part of 'Karpaty' army.
    It is usual mistake made by the foreigners


    The Polish also underestimated the Germans.

    >>>>>>>>> I don't think it was a decisive factor when your country is invaded in most favourable way for the attacker and from almost all directions. Besides the Germans underestimated Poles as well...


    Regards Cegorach

  9. #9
    Crusading historian Member cegorach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    2,523

    Default Re: A short essay on WWII, Mexican American War, and US Civil War

    Kaiser of Arabia

    I have posted more in the NTW forum.

  10. #10
    Ming the Merciless is my idol Senior Member Watchman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    7,967

    Default Re: A short essay on WWII, Mexican American War, and US Civil War

    By what I've read of it the turning point of the French blitzkrieg was when the Germans lured a better part of the French and British forces into the Netherlands and then broke through the weakly defended line at Sedan, crossing the supposedly "tank-proof" Ardennes and trapping the aforementioned Allied forces around Dunkirk. The French duly had to try to scrape together anything they could to form a defensive line before Paris, and this involved relocating the mobile forces that plugged the gaps between the static fortifications of the Maginot Line. This allowed the Germans to move through the now-porous Line - the fortresses handily held out, but could not do much past harassing fire about units moving between them - and the rest is history.

    Somewhat amusingly the Germans had to bring in French officials to convince in person the stubborn and well-supplied Maginot forts to surrender, as the garrisons on the average took the news of French capitulation to be a German ploy...

    Aside from Moscow, for its symbolic and morale importance, just about the single most important German strategic target in the USSR were the oil fields of Baku, north of the Black Sea. Germany notoriously had a problem getting oil, and Army Group South was pointed to capture this vital resource. They got fairly close, but then ended up bogged down in Stalingrad and its near regions with their supply lines duly plagued by the ubiquitous Soviet partisans and the notoriously horrible Russian winter and spring weather. The eventual Soviet counterattack, Operation Uranus, isolated most of the Fifth Army and sundry remnants of other formations (for example Italians) in Stalingrad; the kessel, as Germans called such encirclements, proved to be impossible to supply via and air bridge, attempts to break through the Soviet lines to relieve it failed and it collapsed fairly soon.

    The big campaign at Krusk was at least partially related, although I don't for the moment quite recall the exact chronological order. If memory serves the Soviet counter-thrust around Stalingrad ended up creating a deep salient in the German line, something the Germans needed to do something about. For their part the Soviets apparently turned it into a sort of giant fortified killing ground for the Wehrmacht, figuratively speaking a bundle of razor wire they knew the Germans would need to come into and quite hoped they'd bleed to death in. Which more or less happened; although Soviet casualties were as usual obscene they had far less trouble absorbing them than the Germans theirs, and the latter almost entirely lost the military initiative in the East as a result.

    Odd and ends: the gun-armed battleship became essentially obsolete and the aircraft carrier the new king of the seas over the course of the war. Just ask the Japanese.
    "Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. --- Proof of the existence of the FSM, if needed, can be found in the recent uptick of global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. Apparently His Pastaness is to be worshipped in full pirate regalia. The decline in worldwide pirate population over the past 200 years directly corresponds with the increase in global temperature. Here is a graph to illustrate the point."

    -Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

  11. #11
    Dux Nova Scotia Member lars573's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Halifax NewScotland Canada
    Posts
    4,114

    Default Re: A short essay on WWII, Mexican American War, and US Civil War

    On WW2.

    It would be better to delete Canada and Australia from the allies and change it to the British empire and commonwealth. The commonwealth was created in 1931 and included at the time, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa.

    The advance of Germany into western europe started in April 1940 when Denmark and Norway were invaded. Denmark was over run and defeated in 24 hours. Norway held out for 2 months before capitulating. As an aside the name of occupied Norways primier, Maj. Vidkun Quisling, survives as their word for traitor. The Benelux nations were invaded in early May. Both fell after about a week. Leaving the road open for the invasion of France on May 10 1940.

    On self loading rifles assault rifles and SMG's. Assault rifles and SMG's were first developed in WW1. The first time an SMG was used in war was in 1918 during the Kaisers offensive on the western front. German zonder (assault) companies were issued, the Bergmann Maschinenpistole 18/1 (MP18). The assault rifle was first devised by the Russians in 1910 and saw some service with the Russian army in 1916, and in small quantities till 1925. Self loading rifles were developed first by the USA and USSR in the late 30's. With the US M1 Garand and the Soviet SVT-38.
    Last edited by lars573; 06-07-2005 at 18:13.
    If you havin' skyrim problems I feel bad for you son.. I dodged 99 arrows but my knee took one.

    VENI, VIDI, NATES CALCE CONCIDI

    I came, I saw, I kicked ass

  12. #12
    Member Member Kalle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    389

    Default Re: A short essay on WWII, Mexican American War, and US Civil War

    If I was your teacher and asked for new technologies that saw the light thanks to the war I would not be satisfied with getting descriptions for new weapons...

    And I would be careful with saying that Germany was oppressed by the treaty of Versailles - there is much value put in the word oppressed that might not have its place in a report of this kind...

    Kalle
    Playing computer strategy games of course, history, got a masters degree, outdoor living and nature, reading, movies wining and dining and much much more.

  13. #13
    Member Member Kalle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    389

    Default Re: A short essay on WWII, Mexican American War, and US Civil War

    There is no doubt that Germany was oppressed by the terms in that treaty. Germany in WWI was not evil, and was not run by a Hitler. It was a large and powerful empire defending it's ally, Austria-Hungary (who were the real bad-guys, although that's still a term to use loosely). The fact that Germany was forced to take all the blame for the war and was driven into poverty is nothing short of oppression.
    I agree that the clausul forcing Germany to take full blame for the war was not a very good one and is also generally seen as a bad one.

    However, compare the treaty at Brest-Litovsk with the treaty of Versailles and you will see that Germany were not very nice and forgiving at the diplomatic table either. What would the consequenses have been for France and Benelux had Germany won? I doubt strongly those countries would emerge as untouched as Germany did.

    Would you say, after having seen your countrys youth bleed to death, to your enemy, "Allright lets forget the whole thing and feel free to have as big an army as you like and by all means keep the territories you have taken from us and others earlier."

    There was no foreign occaption forces in Germany after the war (with I think a short time exeption when France entered a geographically limited area), territory losses were very small imo and so on. So oppression is a strong word and a word loaded with value that has no place in this kind of report imo. You could say that: "many think Germany was oppressed", or you can say: "I think Germany was oppressed" or you can say many think Germany was dealt with very harsh in the peace and so on. But you can not say that Germany WAS oppressed in a way that makes it sound like a fact that everybody agrees on without any hesitation.

    In fact it can be argued that the peace was not harsh enough. Germany was left in such a state that it, as proven, could again develop into power. A thing Austria for instance could not. If Germany had been cripled and for instance a Rhineland state had been created (the french wanted it) perhaps there had been no wwII.

    Kalle
    Playing computer strategy games of course, history, got a masters degree, outdoor living and nature, reading, movies wining and dining and much much more.

  14. #14
    Member mercian billman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Western Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,395

    Default Re: A short essay on WWII, Mexican American War, and US Civil War

    Is this essay for a history class? I'm asking this because a lot of history teachers would want you to place emphasis on other factors of war besides the battles. Things like the political, economic, and social factors are just as important in the study of history as battles.

    That being said

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
    The conflict began on April 24th, 1846, when Mexican troops attacked a small amount of US troops on the border.
    This is disputed, one example would be Abraham Lincoln asking President Polk exactly where American blood was shed. You should re-write it to state,

    The conflict began on April 24th, 1846, when Mexican troops allegedly attacked a small amount of US troops on the border.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
    San Patricios regiment of Mexican infantry (Irish Mercenaries).
    The San Patricios was a batalion comprised of men who deserted from the US Army and they were not all Irish.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
    Another hero of the war was Colonel Robert E. Lee. Serving at Veracruz, he gained notoriety for his extremely brave performance in the war, and although his true genius would be shown thirteen years after the end of the war, he is definatly a hero of the war.
    When you mention Lee you should state what he actually did in the war, alluding to his Civil War record is going off track. Mention what he did at Chapaultapec for instance. Also Lee was a Captain in the Mexican war, he was brevated but returned to his rank following the war.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
    A Mexican hero of the war was Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna.
    Santa Anna is not a Mexican hero.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
    Also it showed that America wasn’t a winner-take-all nation, as we did pay Mexico a ridiculous amount of money for the war. All in all, it increased America’s power.
    How much money is a ridiculous amount for 1/4th of your territory? America may not have annexed all of Mexico and may have payed some repirations, but does that justify a war of aggression? The last sentence was on point, but the previous sentence is editorializing. The conclusion definately needs work, some examples of what you could do is state that the war was the culmination of the belief in Manifest Destiny. Manifest Destiny is my biggest gripe here it should be mentioned somewhere in the introduction and conclusion but it isn't. Without Manifest Destiny the Mexican-American War is just another border conflict which it is not. Needless to say Understanding the concept of Manifest Destiny is necessary to understanding the Mexican-American War.

  15. #15
    |LGA.3rd|General Clausewitz Member Kaiser of Arabia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Munich...I wish...
    Posts
    4,788

    Default Re: A short essay on WWII, Mexican American War, and US Civil War

    Quote Originally Posted by mercian billman
    Is this essay for a history class? I'm asking this because a lot of history teachers would want you to place emphasis on other factors of war besides the battles. Things like the political, economic, and social factors are just as important in the study of history as battles.

    That being said



    This is disputed, one example would be Abraham Lincoln asking President Polk exactly where American blood was shed. You should re-write it to state,

    The conflict began on April 24th, 1846, when Mexican troops allegedly attacked a small amount of US troops on the border.



    The San Patricios was a batalion comprised of men who deserted from the US Army and they were not all Irish.



    When you mention Lee you should state what he actually did in the war, alluding to his Civil War record is going off track. Mention what he did at Chapaultapec for instance. Also Lee was a Captain in the Mexican war, he was brevated but returned to his rank following the war.



    Santa Anna is not a Mexican hero.



    How much money is a ridiculous amount for 1/4th of your territory? America may not have annexed all of Mexico and may have payed some repirations, but does that justify a war of aggression? The last sentence was on point, but the previous sentence is editorializing. The conclusion definately needs work, some examples of what you could do is state that the war was the culmination of the belief in Manifest Destiny. Manifest Destiny is my biggest gripe here it should be mentioned somewhere in the introduction and conclusion but it isn't. Without Manifest Destiny the Mexican-American War is just another border conflict which it is not. Needless to say Understanding the concept of Manifest Destiny is necessary to understanding the Mexican-American War.
    Yeah it's for history, but the thing is he gave us a list of questions he wanted answered in the essay and I answered them all.

    Next, it was the mexicans who attacked first.

    Next again; it wasn't a war of agression, the Mexicans were in American territory at the begining of the war.

    Next; any amount of money is too much after an unneeded war caused by Mexican agression. We shouldn't have given them anything. They lost the war, to the victor goes the spoils. They couldn't control that land anyway.

    Why do you hate Freedom?
    The US is marching backward to the values of Michael Stivic.

  16. #16
    Member mercian billman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Western Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,395

    Default Re: A short essay on WWII, Mexican American War, and US Civil War

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
    Yeah it's for history, but the thing is he gave us a list of questions he wanted answered in the essay and I answered them all.
    You did not mention Manifest Destiny once. It is impossible to understanding the causes of the Mexican-American War without understanding the concept of Manifest Destiny.

    To your credit you did identify 3 battles and 3 heros/villains (although one was falsely identified.) I didn't see mention of new technologies except maybe the congrave rockets but it was not identified as such. The introduction was to brief, for one it did not mention Manifest Destiny or note that the US recognized the Nueces River as the border in the Adams-Onis Treaty (more on this later). Finally your conclusion makes no mention of the impact the War had on American politics or on slavery.

    If we hold your view as correct the Mexican-American War was just a border dispute turned ugly. This is not correct, any historian worth his salt knows this. The Mexican-American War was the culmination of Manifest Destiny and an American war of conquest which divided the nation and set in motion the destruction of the Whig party.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
    Next, it was the mexicans who attacked first.
    This is after the US sent troops into disputed territory that was traditionally controlled and inhabited by Mexicans. Colonel Ethan Allen Hitchcock wrote this in his diary

    I have said from the first that the United States are the aggressors...It looks as if the government sent a small force on purpose to bring on a war, so as to have a pre-text for taking California.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
    Next again; it wasn't a war of agression, the Mexicans were in American territory at the begining of the war.
    The US annexed Texas and moved US troops into a territory disputed between Mexico and Texas. Before annexation the traditional border between Mexico and Texas was the Nueces River which the US recognized (Adams-Onis Treaty). President Polk assured Texans that he would uphold their claim to the Rio Grande as part of annexation. On 30 June 1845 General Taylor recieved orders to march the Rio Grande and expel any Mexicans who would cross the border.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
    Next; any amount of money is too much after an unneeded war caused by Mexican agression. We shouldn't have given them anything. They lost the war, to the victor goes the spoils. They couldn't control that land anyway.
    If you want to argue from a might makes right, the meek shall not inherit the earth viewpoint, fine with me. But please don't insult myself or anybody that's actually studied the Mexican-American war by claiming it was caused by Mexican Aggression or claim that Santa Anna is a Mexican hero. Like Simon Appleton I believe that your political viewpoints have clouded your view.
    Last edited by mercian billman; 06-09-2005 at 01:03.

  17. #17
    Member Member Kalle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    389

    Default Re: A short essay on WWII, Mexican American War, and US Civil War

    You seem to only read half my post cube or read all but ignore some of it if I am to judge from your writing. But hey, I got all the time in the world to debate with people who only take into account selected parts of the other debaters post. If you want you can go back and read my old post again or you dont have to bother since I have a new one here.

    The war pitted the Germans, beaten and bloodied after World War One, and oppressed by the terms in the Treaty of Versailles, and the Italians under the Fascist government of Benito Mussolini, and the Empire of Japan; against the British Empire, France, the Soviet Union, Poland, Canada, Australia, and later the United States.
    This is what the essay says. Lets for one second pretend that the treaty was oppressive during the first years after the peacetreaty but this text goes beyond that. It declares that the germans were oppressed right up until the second war allthough Hitler had allready long before the war made the treaty null and void and neglected or destroyed clausul after clausul in the treaty which in fact was not in effect anymore.

    Therefor I claim it is both wrong and charged with sympathivalues (if they are oppressed then why should they not declare war, right will be on their side) for the german regime to use the word oppression in the way it is used in this text.

    Add the oppression together with the beaten and bloodied and I almost start to cry for what the cruel world did to the germans - they had all right to start a new war to make things right...


    Kalle
    Playing computer strategy games of course, history, got a masters degree, outdoor living and nature, reading, movies wining and dining and much much more.

  18. #18
    |LGA.3rd|General Clausewitz Member Kaiser of Arabia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Munich...I wish...
    Posts
    4,788

    Default Re: A short essay on WWII, Mexican American War, and US Civil War

    Quote Originally Posted by mercian billman
    You did not mention Manifest Destiny once. It is impossible to understanding the causes of the Mexican-American War without understanding the concept of Manifest Destiny.

    To your credit you did identify 3 battles and 3 heros/villains (although one was falsely identified.) I didn't see mention of new technologies except maybe the congrave rockets but it was not identified as such. The introduction was to brief, for one it did not mention Manifest Destiny or note that the US recognized the Nueces River as the border in the Adams-Onis Treaty (more on this later). Finally your conclusion makes no mention of the impact the War had on American politics or on slavery.

    If we hold your view as correct the Mexican-American War was just a border dispute turned ugly. This is not correct, any historian worth his salt knows this. The Mexican-American War was the culmination of Manifest Destiny and an American war of conquest which divided the nation and set in motion the destruction of the Whig party.



    This is after the US sent troops into disputed territory that was traditionally controlled and inhabited by Mexicans. Colonel Ethan Allen Hitchcock wrote this in his diary

    I have said from the first that the United States are the aggressors...It looks as if the government sent a small force on purpose to bring on a war, so as to have a pre-text for taking California.



    The US annexed Texas and moved US troops into a territory disputed between Mexico and Texas. Before annexation the traditional border between Mexico and Texas was the Nueces River which the US recognized (Adams-Onis Treaty). President Polk assured Texans that he would uphold their claim to the Rio Grande as part of annexation. On 30 June 1845 General Taylor recieved orders to march the Rio Grande and expel any Mexicans who would cross the border.



    If you want to argue from a might makes right, the meek shall not inherit the earth viewpoint, fine with me. But please don't insult myself or anybody that's actually studied the Mexican-American war by claiming it was caused by Mexican Aggression or claim that Santa Anna is a Mexican hero. Like Simon Appleton I believe that your political viewpoints have clouded your view.

    Mexico must not have many heroes then, do they? the heros and such were supposed to be in your opinion, and in my opinion he was a hero for his nation. I admit, I don't study the mexican american war, and the reason is is because it was a pitiful conflict in a period of time which I'm too busy studying European history to give a rats arse about. Oh and the congreve wasn't new, it was used in the Napoleonic wars.

    Next, my conclusion was supposed to be on if it positivly or negativly impacted America's political standing in the world, and I answered that.

    Next, the Mexicans *were* the agressors. They lost texas fair and square at San Jacinto, and then they thought they could steal a nice little chunk of it and then say that Texas began at the Neueces river when we all know it was the Rio Grande. The disputed territory was both claimed by the Mexicans and the US, and considered terretory by both nations. How is it agression to move troops within a province belonging to you? It's not.

    Why do you hate Freedom?
    The US is marching backward to the values of Michael Stivic.

  19. #19
    Senior Member Senior Member econ21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    9,651

    Default Re: A short essay on WWII, Mexican American War, and US Civil War

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
    The environment which allowed for someone like Hitler to come to power is a direct result of the economic damage done by the allies after World War I.
    I agree with Kalle - this is debatable territory at best and should be signalled as such. Germany rode out the initial economic storms - hyperinflation etc - in the early/mid-1920s. The Beerhall Putsch failed. How much reparations contributed to the hyperinflation, I don't know. I suspect it was a contributory factor but not a sufficient one (hyper-inflation is a very specific economic malady with a straightforward proximate cause - the government's monetary policy). The economic damage that helped Hitler come to power was the Great Depression, which started in the US and was pretty global in its reach. Again reparations would not have helped the German government ride out the depression but I doubt they were a key factor at this stage.

    There are interesting parallels between the treatment of Germany after WW1 and that of Iraq after the first Gulf War. Whether these should be characterised as oppression or containment is a moot point.

  20. #20
    Member mercian billman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Western Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,395

    Default Re: A short essay on WWII, Mexican American War, and US Civil War

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
    Mexico must not have many heroes then, do they? the heros and such were supposed to be in your opinion, and in my opinion he was a hero for his nation. I admit, I don't study the mexican american war, and the reason is is because it was a pitiful conflict in a period of time which I'm too busy studying European history to give a rats arse about. Oh and the congreve wasn't new, it was used in the Napoleonic wars.
    This paragraph says it all, your essay sucks because you don't care. Mexico/Mexicans have their heros and Santa Anna is definately not one of them. This would be like me claiming that Hitler was a German hero.

    There are enough Mexican heroes from the War. The Boy Heroes of Chapualtapec and the San Patracios are the first that come to mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
    Next, my conclusion was supposed to be on if it positivly or negativly impacted America's political standing in the world, and I answered that.
    All in all, it increased America’s power.

    I'm not sure about your teacher, (your 13 right?) but that wouldn't cut it in my history class.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
    Next, the Mexicans *were* the agressors. They lost texas fair and square at San Jacinto, and then they thought they could steal a nice little chunk of it and then say that Texas began at the Neueces river when we all know it was the Rio Grande. The disputed territory was both claimed by the Mexicans and the US, and considered terretory by both nations. How is it agression to move troops within a province belonging to you? It's not.
    The US recognized the Nueces River as the border between Texas and Mexico in the Adams-Onis Treaty. When Texas became independent the US recognized the Nueces River as the border. It was not until the US attempted to annex Texas that they upheld the claim of the Rio Grande. Territory beyond the Nueces did not belong to Texas it was inhabited and administered by Mexicans.

    I don't mind trying to help you, but your arguing something that no real historian would agree with. Mexico was clearly not the aggressor in the war. Mexico did not want a war with the United States, they wanted to maintain the status quo. The US had it's eyes set on California for a long time and were willing to fight for it.

    Kaiser, have you even studied Manifest Destiny? You seriously cannot understand the causes of the conflict without understanding Manifest Destiny.

  21. #21
    |LGA.3rd|General Clausewitz Member Kaiser of Arabia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Munich...I wish...
    Posts
    4,788

    Default Re: A short essay on WWII, Mexican American War, and US Civil War

    I'll be 15 in August.

    Manifest Destiny is the beleif that is the United State's Right to inherite all the lands of North America, from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
    It had a part to play in the mexican american war much like the arms build up after the Franco-Prussian war had to do with World War One. It was behind the war however the spark that caused the war was somthing unrelated.
    Oh and I got the grade back for it, I got like a 90.

    Why do you hate Freedom?
    The US is marching backward to the values of Michael Stivic.

  22. #22
    Senior Member Senior Member econ21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    9,651

    Default Re: A short essay on WWII, Mexican American War, and US Civil War

    If Kaiser is 13 [EDIT: 14], then my opinion of his WW2 essay increases a lot! It's good work, especially for someone so young.

    I agree that it's hard to regard Santa Anna as a hero. An Osprey book I read on the Alamo campaign highlighted the role of General Urrea as a successful Mexican commander. A quick google search revealed this comment:

    Indeed, "so great was the reputation he had established during the campaign," wrote a fellow officer, that "he was looked upon as an anchor of salvation."
    I'm not sure what became of him after the Alamo campaign, though.
    Last edited by econ21; 06-10-2005 at 09:11.

  23. #23
    Member mercian billman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Western Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,395

    Default Re: A short essay on WWII, Mexican American War, and US Civil War

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
    I'll be 15 in August.

    Manifest Destiny is the beleif that is the United State's Right to inherite all the lands of North America, from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
    It had a part to play in the mexican american war much like the arms build up after the Franco-Prussian war had to do with World War One. It was behind the war however the spark that caused the war was somthing unrelated.
    Oh and I got the grade back for it, I got like a 90.
    I apologize for judging your essay to harshly a 8th grade or Freshman level essay should be judged as such and I didn't take that into account

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
    It was behind the war however the spark that caused the war was somthing unrelated.
    I disagree with this assesment. The Democratic and Whig Parties both favored expansion into the Southwest and all that was needed was a pre-text for invasion. There's a reason, historians condemn the Mexican-American War as "The foulest blot on our national honour." It was a war driven by greed, and the desire to expand national borders as well as expand slavery.

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon Appleton
    I'm not sure what became of him after the Alamo campaign, though.
    General Urrea led a revolt against Santa Anna following the Texas War and died in 1849. Theres not a lot of material on him in English, I do know of a book written by Patricia R. Herring which is supposed to be very good , unfortunately it seems to be pretty rare and fairly expensive as well.

  24. #24
    |LGA.3rd|General Clausewitz Member Kaiser of Arabia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Munich...I wish...
    Posts
    4,788

    Default Re: A short essay on WWII, Mexican American War, and US Civil War

    Quote Originally Posted by mercian billman
    I apologize for judging your essay to harshly a 8th grade or Freshman level essay should be judged as such and I didn't take that into account



    I disagree with this assesment. The Democratic and Whig Parties both favored expansion into the Southwest and all that was needed was a pre-text for invasion. There's a reason, historians condemn the Mexican-American War as "The foulest blot on our national honour." It was a war driven by greed, and the desire to expand national borders as well as expand slavery.



    General Urrea led a revolt against Santa Anna following the Texas War and died in 1849. Theres not a lot of material on him in English, I do know of a book written by Patricia R. Herring which is supposed to be very good , unfortunately it seems to be pretty rare and fairly expensive as well.
    Don't worry about judging it so harshly, I realize now you were right . And it's Freshmen level (I'm like the 3rd youngest in the class lol, but I like look the 3rd oldest. Er...off topic).
    Anyway thanks for trying to help, whaddya think of the WWII and Civil War ones? BTW I did them in a nutshell as not to make them too long (13 and 6 pages, respectivly)

    Why do you hate Freedom?
    The US is marching backward to the values of Michael Stivic.

  25. #25
    Member mercian billman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Western Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,395

    Default Re: A short essay on WWII, Mexican American War, and US Civil War

    I haven't saw the Civil War one, but the WW2 essay was fantastic and thats probably why I judged the Mexican-American War essay so harshly. Honestly the WW2 essay, was written written at a higher level, it showed a lot of maturity and writing talent.

    I really do hope that you take a greater interest in the Mexican-American War. It may not have been as grand as other wars in the past, but it changed the course of history and made Americas conquest of the west complete. In addition a lot of Civil War, Generals were junior officers or field grade officers during the war and for most the Mexican-American war was the first taste of combat and would influence them throughout their careers.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO