Battle Of Verdun: Source Analysis

Albert depicts how the “doughboys” lived at the front what they ate, what the average soldier carried in his pack, and combines such general accounts with details of particular battles

Throughout the book “Au Revoir Les Enfants” Louis Malle highlights at several points the typical associations which the majority of people have when discussing the role of the Germans during the war. However Malle approaches the topic from a more complex angle thus forcing the reader to question the general stereotypes and examine the varying attitudes of both the French and Germans, by portraying them in certain situations in which they adopt a sometimes unexpected attitude.

The production focuses on the period before and during Koschorrek’s station in Stalingrad and places Hitler’s decision for a two-front war in a historical context. The documentary covers the massive success of ‘Operation Barbarossa’, Hitler’s artillery barrage strategy in 1941 up until the retreat of the German army in 1943. Hitler Turns East tells the audience how the German army ultimately failed despite its initial success. Although the German army quickly and powerfully dissolved Soviet defenses, the Red Army bought the German troops to a standstill. These aspects of the documentary are clearly accounted by Koschorrek in far more, firsthand detail in his memoir. The Soviet Army continually drives the German troops from their positions and this is specifically shown in Koschorrek’s entry of November 20th and December 13th 1942. Stationed along the Don, a river running along Stalingrad, Koschorrek records “the Russians have also broken through,” Romanian lines in the south, “and are coming at us from both sides, trying to take us in a pincer movement”. The documentary specifically remarks on the pincer strategy of the Soviet troops, a method that attempts to encircle and surround troops but cutting off defense lines at both sides. The documentary also remarks on the involvement of Romanian troops while Koschorreck goes into more detail of their social behavior (as soldiers) rather than

* Analysis of the role played by American troops in the Second Battle of the Marne and subsequent engagements with the Germans

The Battle of the Bulge (16 December 1944 – 25 January 1945) was the last major German offensive campaign on the Western Front during World War II. It was launched, in the dense forest of Ardennes Wallonia in eastern part of Belgium, northeast France, and Luxembourg. This battle was one of the largest fought by the United States Army, on the Western Front in Europe, during World War II. This fierce battle, was between the German Nazi’s, the American Army, Canadian Army, and the British Army, was one of Hitler’s last attempt to split the Allies driving them towards Germany and destroy their ability to supply themselves. Were the Germans able to stop the Americans and the British from getting their supplies? Was the weather a factor and if so, who did it assist in the battle? Was the American Army able to counter attack in a timely manner and stop the German Nazi’s invasion?

Barbara Tuchman's Pulitzer prize-winning book about the start of World War I is a fascinating and detailed work that delivers the thoughts and actions of the belligerents and their previously mysterious leaders to life on every page. This military history of the first month of the war is written in a way as to keep the reader interested because of the great detail. The author also manages to write about the events in such a manor as the reader sees them as they happened. Despite any previous knowledge about the historical events of the war, the book manages to keep you wondering if the Germans will succeed in its aims.

the Germans in the war as the enemy. In the battle the enemy is shown

The text begins with Private Ernst Junger 's arrival in Champagne, France on December 27th, 1914, just shy of twenty years old. Junger had “ran away from school to enlist in the Foreign Legion,” (1) and was about to begin his career in the military that would change his life forever. In the beginning, he describes the grey December sky and the “breath of battle” (5) that blew across the soldiers, stirring up fear, uncertainty, and a realization of their fate. Each soldier had a unique background: some students, others factory workers, eventually

This mission command analysis evaluates the battle of Team Desobry at the town of Noville, Belgium. These events took place 18-19 December 1944, and later impacted the battle fought at Bastogne during World War II. It is the goal of this review to discuss and analyze three mission command principles displayed during this battle: Create shared understanding, exercise disciplined initiative, and the acceptance of prudent risk. One of the main characters that took part in this story was the 20th Armored Infantry Battalion, 10th Armored Division. The commanding officer of this element was Major William R. Desobry. During the events of World War II, the German forces were trying to gain control of the Ardennes to cut off the allies’ supply lines in order to isolate British forces from the American troops. A pivotal task for German forces to attain this goal was to gain access and take control of the Belgian town of Bastogne. However, an important strategic stepping stone to get there was Noville, which is just seven kilometers northeast of Bastogne. Two main reasons made Noville such a critical location for the Germans: First, it had a junction of roads that were important for displacement of German forces to the West. Second, it provided an alternative road to access Bastogne from the north.1

Erich Maria Remarque’s literary breakthrough, All Quiet on the Western Front, describes two stories. It meticulously chronicles the thoughts of a soldier in World War I while simultaneously detailing the horrors of all wars; each tale is not only a separate experience for the soldier, but is also a new representation of the fighting. The war is seen through the eyes of Paul Baumer whose mindset is far better developed in comparison to his comrades’. His true purpose in the novel is not to serve as a representation of the common soldier, but to take on a godly and omniscient role so that he may serve as the connection between WWI and all past and future melees of the kind. Baumer becomes the

John Keegan, the author of “The Face of Battle” is allowing the reader to view different perspective of history, from the eyes of the soldier. Although by his own account, Keegan acknowledges, “I have never been in a battle. And I grow increasingly convinced that I have very little idea of what a battle can be like.” Keegan scorns historians for pointing the finger of failure after an evolution occurs and not examining the soldier’s point of view while the battle is transpiring.

Source 3 is a valid source as it is a newspaper front page that comes from the time of the Battle and offers the British perspective of the Battle. Once again this source draws

Having proposed that military history has been failing in its duty, Keegan then continues to demonstrate how it should be done. The battles of Agincourt, Waterloo, and the Somme are the main interests of the book; these battles took place centuries apart and all involved British armies. He examines, in detail, which aspects of war changed or remain constant between the three battles. Keegan brilliantly and

In Ernst Junger’s memoir, Storm of Steel, the first remarks are of him stepping off the train at Bazancourt, France. Junger eliminates any details about his life before the war, already contrasting most war memoirs written. This serious demeanor that Junger takes on, one that removes emotion from the equation, persists throughout the memoir and can be clearly seen by the way Junger processes the death of his comrades. By getting down to brass tacks, Junger is able to give a detailed recollection of what the life of a soldier in the German Army was like. Ernst Junger’s accounts in the memoir Storm of Steel show the reality of what World War I was truly like, and how he slowly realizes that there’s more nuance to war than he anticipated.

In the study of military history, historians at times use what is known as the “fog of war” technique with expectations of keeping away from the historians’ fallacy. In this approach, the actions and choices of the historical subject are assessed primarily on the premise of what that individual knew at that time and not on future developments that the individual could not have known. Fischer’s approach is a scientific-like “what and how” only approach and rarely fields the question of “why.” Fischer states that the “why” deals with the metaphysical issues that bring no definitive results. Fischer’s work shows that historiography can only be taken seriously if it is practiced according to strictly empirical procedures and can only be done by asking the correct questions and answering them according to the strict methodology of “historical logic.” The historian’s task is to solve problems, to ask appropriate questions and to seek answers by researching the information based on archival and other methods of research. Interpretation is inevitable, but the interpretation should conform to the