September 11, 2001 terrorists’ attacks on American did trigger United States and United Kingdom to invade Afghanistan in search of prime terrorist, Osama Bin Laden, the master mind of terrorists who is responsible for the terrorist activities across the world.
Osama Bin Laden belongs to Al-Qaeda terrorist organization that has it basis in Afghanistan, allied to Taliban regime that provides them with a haven to propagate their terrorism activities. Hence, United States armed forces in conjunction with United Kingdom armed forces launched a massive operation to oust Taliban regime and flush out Al-Qaeda organization from Afghanistan, as a way of overcoming terrorism.
Currently, United States troops have been in Afghanistan for more than a decade and have made significant fight against Al-Qaeda terrorists. Therefore, the United States need to pull out its troops from Afghanistan because the cost of retaining them is unsustainable, Al-Qaeda organization is no longer a threat, and that Afghanistan requires independence to fight terrorism.
The United States have incurred significant cost in terms of both lives and resources in combating Al-Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan. Statistics shows that about 1500 troops have died, and more than 1500 troops have suffered serious injurious in the course of fighting Al-Qaeda.
Loss of soldiers due to death and incapacitation is a significant loss that United States should no longer suffer after a decade of war in Afghanistan. Moreover, the cost of retaining troops in Afghanistan is about $120 billion a year. The cost of retaining troops in Afghanistan is not sustainable because it contributes considerably to the federal deficit that is approaching $15 trillion. Hence, United States troops should pull out from Afghanistan to alleviate increasing federal deficit that may cripple economy.
In the past decade, United States and its allies have made significant progress in fighting against terrorism. During the onset of Afghanistan war, the United States managed to oust Taliban regime, which provided a haven for Al-Qaeda organization to thrive and propagate its terrorism activities against United States and its allies across the world.
Additionally, United States troops have managed to flush out Al-Qaeda terrorists from their hideouts, thus weakening their influence. Remarkable fight against Al-Qaeda culminated when United States troops killed Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind of Al-Qaeda organization, in 2011. Therefore, since Al-Qaeda organization is no longer strong in Afghanistan, United States should pull out its troops.
Since the United States troops have liberated Afghanistan citizens from the oppressive regime of Taliban and overcome Al-Qaeda terrorists, they should provide independence and support to Afghanistan government to combat terrorism. Lack of independence in fighting terrorism is a challenge that has made Afghanistan government be unable to fight terrorism.
Currently, Afghanistan government has appreciable development in areas such as economy, health, education, transport, politics and security. Hence, pull out of United States troops will empower Afghanistan to become independent in fighting terrorism.
Conclusively, United States troops have stayed in Afghanistan for over a decade and have made a significant contribution in the fight against terrorism. For the past decade, Americans have endured high cost of retaining troops in Afghanistan because it increases federal deficit.
Given that the United States troops have ousted Taliban regime, overcome Al-Qaeda, and killed its leader, Osama Bin Laden, they have achieved their mission, and thus they should pull out of Afghanistan. Moreover, Afghanistan government is currently strong enough to combat terrorism. Thus, United States should pull out its troops because of high cost of retaining troops, achievement of the mission, and stability Afghanistan government.
The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has undergone a series of war over the past fifteen years. The first war that broke out in 1996 and ended in 1997, ousted long time ruler Mobutu Sese Seko and brought to power Laurent Kabila, a rebel leader supported by Rwanda and Burundi (HRW 35).
The second war from 1998-2003, started when Laurent Kabila disagreed with his initial backers, propelling Rwanda and Uganda to invade the east of the country. The war led to the death of approximately 5.4 million people. Sexual violence was widespread and sometimes systematic.
Rival groups used it as a tool of war to deliberately terrorize civilians, to exert control over them or punish them for perceived collaboration with the enemy. Reports indicate that armed groups would abduct women including young girls and use them as sexual slaves (HRW 40). Many of the crimes committed amounted to crimes against humanity. In fact, women affirmed that the war was being fought on their bodies (HRW 43).
Sexual violence continued in the Congo throughout the peace process and the national elections in 2006. In Eastern Congo, new armed groups emerged leading to continued perpetration of rape cases. Reports indicate that sexual violence against women continued in North Kivu in 2008 due to intense fighting between rival groups (HRW 44). Incidences of rape propagated by civilians have notably increased in the recent past.
This is due to an increase of demobilized combatants who have reintegrated into society amid poor rehabilitation measures in society. The brutalization of society that has eroded protective social norms also contributes to these crimes (HRW 45). These atrocities against women have led to the crowning of Congo as the worst place on earth to be a woman.
The Congolese national army (FARDC) is considered as the key perpetrators of sexual violence. The army came into place after the installation of the transitional government in June 2003 (HRW 56).
This army brought soldiers from all the leading rebel groups as well as former government army together. The strategy aimed at creating harmony. Officer and commander groups were divided up between them. In addition, the transitional government introduced a new policy called mix-up in which new brigades were formed comprising of soldiers from main rival groups.
This policy targeted to break former chains of command and enhance the integration of former enemy combatants into new units. A rapid integration process that took place in 2009 saw estimated 12,000 combatants from rebel groups join the national army. The national army was estimated to have close to 60,000 soldiers after, the integration process.
The national army encountered long standing problems that included indiscipline, pay, command and control and contributed further to the world scale abuses committed with impunity by the Congolese soldiers. Since they had been deployed throughout the country, the soldiers formed the largest perpetrators of rape cases. Since the army was characterized by gross misconduct, army officers could not stop sexual violence or punish undisciplined soldiers.
The war in the Democratic Republic of Congo led to a serious economic crisis. First, the war caused massive destruction on the local infrastructure. This caused a reduction in the local production of the country. Secondly, the war brought to a halt the local banking industry. Entrepreneurs could not access funds to revive the local infrastructures and get their businesses running. Foreign investors and international lending institutions withdraw their support.
The rebel leaders took control of trans-border commerce (Vlassenroot and Raeymaekers 56). The rebel leaders also led to the formation of informal tax payments systems. Business men who wanted to progress had to form friendly relationships with the rebel leaders who controlled the movement of goods. The businessmen had to pay pretax on custom duties to get favors from the military leaders.
The situation derailed anyone who thought of running a business in the Congo. Consequently, manufacturers and traders had to deal with a steep increase in prices of imported household products. In addition, prices for local agricultural products rose. The war led to a shift from local production, to the importation of already made products from foreign countries.
In conclusion, it can be noted that the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo significantly affected women. Fighting parties used the women as tools of war. Women were raped by soldiers of their rival groups in retaliation and held hostage in exchange for their husbands.
The situation worsened further when rebel groups sprang up and propagated sexual violence against women. Women literally run away from soldiers and the armed bandits. The transitional government army that comprised of soldiers from chief rival groups had gross misconduct amongst its soldiers.
The army’s main intention was to create harmony amongst the rival groups. However, gross misconduct and poor coordination prevailed in the army. The women suffered extensive physical and psychological effects. Despite of the vast economic potential of the Democratic republic of Congo, the country has not realized its expected economical returns. The series of wars destabilized the country’s economy.
Works Cited
Human Rights Watch (HRW). Soldiers who Rape, Commanders who condone: Sexual Violence and Military Reform in the DRC. New York: HRW, 2009. Print.
Vlassenroot, K. and Raeymaekers, T. Conflict and Social Transformation in Eastern DRC. Massachussets: Academia Press, 2009 Print.
The 20th century was characterized by major military confrontations between nations. The first significant military conflict during this century was the First World War. This war, which took place between 1914 and 1918, was different from previous wars in that it involved almost all nations in the world. The two main sides in the war carried out unrestricted attacks on each other in various fronts.
The Australian military was heavily involved in the various battles of the First World War. Due to its close relationship with Britain, Australia was fighting on the side of the British led Triple Entente against the German led Triple Alliance. One of the fiercest battles carried out by the Australian Army was on the Western Front against German positions at the village of Pozieres.
This Battle for Pozieres attracted great interest from contemporary observers and WWI historians. This paper will review different accounts of the battle in order to highlight the similarities and differences between the primary accounts by contemporary observers of the war and the secondary accounts given by historians.
Similarities
A common assessment of the Battle of Pozieres is that the Australians were facing a formidable enemy in the form of the Germans. The firsthand and secondary accounts of the battle recognize the military might of the German forces. Before engaging the Germans in the Western Front, the Australians had carried out successful military operations in Egypt. These campaigns had given the Australian soldiers moral and experience.
However, the top commanders admitted that the Germans were a different enemy. Blair notes that the Australians were aware that they were engaging a competent enemy who was capable of waging a serious scientific war. Firsthand accounts of the war reveal that the German army was not only well armed but also very strategic.
The Germans were able to defend their positions and supply fresh troops to counter the Australian attacks. The various records acknowledge that the Germans were a skilful and deadly opponent who made use of great defensive belts of barbed wire, batteries of machine guns, and incredible concentrations of artillery and shell fire.
There is a similarity in the assessment that the Australian forces focussed on attacking the German trenches and were successful in their efforts. Trench warfare was one of the techniques used by the Germans to defend their positions. All accounts of the Battle for Pozieres acknowledge the extensive use of the trench system by the Germans.
Contemporary observers and historians note that the Germans trench system was very effective in maintaining defensive positions even when under intense attacks. A primary objective in the battle was therefore to destroy or take over the trenches.
The Australian War correspondent reveals that after intense attacks against the Germans, the Australian forces were able to take over a small portion of the German trench. The Australians concentrated their attacks on the trenches and by the end of the battle most of the trenches had been destroyed by artillery fire.
Accounts of the carnage wrecked by heavy German machines during the battle are consistent. The German troops made use of light and heavy weaponry to stop the Australian forces from advancing. First hand accounts state that German shells were bursting in one continuous and constant line across certain positions. This made it impossible for Australians to advance without incurring significant casualties.
All accounts make note of the devastating effects of the 5.9 inch German howitzer. These machines were used to carry out ferocious bombardments against Australian positions. The massive shells fired exploded leaving many soldiers shell shocked and pulverizing others.
Differences
A significant difference in the accounts is with regard to the reaction of soldiers in the face of heavy attacks by the Germans. The first account presented in the newspaper reports by war correspondents declared that the Australian solders were fearless and unnerved by the war.
In one report by Bean, who viewed the battle from the front, states that the Australian soldiers walked through paths that were under shellfire exactly as if they were going home for tea. The report praises the bravery of the soldiers who appeared to be indifferent to the heavy shelling being carried out by the Germans. This record of confidence by the Australian soldiers in the face of aggressive attacks by the Germans is disputed.
Historians record that the first experience of war on the Western Front was unnerving to many Australian soldiers who were devastated by the amount of heavy fire from the Germans. Blair documents that the German bombardment of Australia troops had an unhinging effect on the infantry. According to this account, many Australian soldiers lost their nerves in the face of the frightful bombardments.
There are reports of Australian solders being so dazed by the attacks that they were incapable of working or fighting. Charlton documents that many soldiers experienced significant anxiety and tension in the battlefield.
Many of them crept together for protection instead of maintaining uniform space between them as they had been instructed. From these records, it is clear that the courageous conduct of soldiers documented in first accounts was not the norm during the battle.
While the first accounts by the war correspondents viewed the Battle for Pozieres as a success for the AIF, Historians regard the battle as a catastrophic failure for the Australians. Contemporary observers emphasize on the gains made by the Australians. Every trench position taken over from the Germans is viewed as a victory. The advances made by the troops on the battlefield are regarded as victories for the Australians.
Reports by war correspondents documented that many German troops on the frontline were being killed or captured by Australian soldiers. This accounts failed to consider the massive casualties being suffered by the Australians. Historians reveal that over 50% of the Australian troops were killed in the Battle of Pozieres. Such a high casualty rate leads the historians to regard this battle as a failure for the Australians.
The assessment of the level of efficiency demonstrated by the Australians differs. Firsthand observers commend the actions of the soldiers and their officers. The effectiveness of the tactics used by the Australians is highlighted.
The ability of the soldiers to overrun German positions by attacking in waves is commended by the war reporter. Positive assessments are given of the Australian’s moves to form flanks from which to attack the Germans. However, historians give a negative review of the efficiency of the Australian army.
According to the historians, the Australians did not engage in careful preparations before the attack. Instead, the Australian Army was only concerned with achieving its objectives of seizing Pozieres from the Germans. Due to the poor planning, Australians were subjected to heavy losses by the disciplined German troops. The soldiers did not take heed of German strategies to prevent unnecessary loses.
Charlton reports that the German’s had a policy of engaging in vigorous counter-attacks after an assault from the Australians. Some of the counter-attacks carried out at Pozieres were serious and they led to great casualties among the Australians.
The willingness of the soldiers to continue waging war is also disputed by the various accounts. According to firsthand accounts, there was a great desire by the Australian troops to compete their mission. Even under the heavy bombardment, the soldiers did not wish to withdraw from their lines. The Australian War correspondent, Bean, documented that during the entire fighting around Pozieres, not a single soldier deserted his post.
Instead, soldiers were anxious to get to the battle front and carry out offensive action against the Germans. These accounts by the contemporary observers differ significantly from those of subsequent historians.
Contrary to the reports that soldiers were reluctant to get out of battle, historians record that many soldiers cherished the opportunity of a withdrawal. The men were desperate to leave Pozieres and they expressed huge relief when they were asked to retreat or when other troops came to relieve them.
Discussion and Conclusion
The Battle of Pozieres ended with victory for the Australians as they were able to secure good positions in the North and East of Pozieres. However, the victory came at a huge cost for the Australians and as such; historians consider it a major military failure for the Australians. However, this paper has shown that the assessment of the performance of Australians during the battle is not consistent.
A number of plausible explanations can be offered for the significant differences in the assessment of Australian performance between contemporary observers and historians. The reports given by the firsthand observers were being read by the general population as the war took place. Instead of strict unbiased reporting, the observers sought to east the fears and worries of the Australian population.
These accounts therefore concealed some of the facts about the war and focused on extolling the virtues of the nation’s soldiers. Another reason for the difference in assessment is that the historians had the benefit of reviewing many accounts of the battle.
From this analysis, a more complete picture of the battle could be made. Therefore, while the firsthand correspondent might have viewed the battle as a success, a review of the casualty numbers would show that the war was a catastrophe.
This paper set out to review different accounts of the battle of Pozieres in order to highlight the similarities and differences between the firsthand accounts and those of later historians. The paper has shown that the various records of the war acknowledge the proficiency of the German forces and the devastative nature of German weaponry.
However, there are various differences in the assessment of the war with contemporary observers focusing on the bravery of the Australian soldiers and their success in the battle.
On the other hand, historians acknowledge the fright experienced by the soldiers and the heavy casualties suffered. From the analysis carried out in this paper, it can be concluded that in general, contemporary observers had a positive assessment while historians had a negative assessment of Australian performance.
Bibliography
Bean, Charles, ‘The Australians: Battlefield Pictures’, Sydney Morning Herald, 28 July 1916, p.7.
Bean, Charles, ‘The Australians: Fighting at Pozieres’, Sydney Morning Herald, 29 July 1916, p.13.
Bean, Charles, ‘The Australians: Pozieres Battle: Bitter Night Attack’, Sydney Morning Herald, 2 August 1916, p.11.
Blair, Dale, Dinkum Diggers: an Australian battalion at war, Melbourne, Melbourne University Press, 2001, pp. 100-2, 108-18.
Charlton, Peter, Pozieres 1916: Australians on the Somme, Sydney, Methuen Haynes, 1986, pp. 132-8, 148-50.
Jeffrey Grey, A Military History of Australia, 3rd edition, Melbourne, Cambridge University Press, 2008, pp. 101-111.
Kuwait turned out to be the British colony through the Kuwaitis application in the year 1889. While sketching the boundaries, Kuwait acted under Iraq until the year 1923. It connected to the Arab League following the pulling out of British protection.
However, there emerged a protest by Iraq that Kuwait was under its countryside. This saw Iraq giving up its state to Kuwait with the Iraqi authoritarian, Hussein Saddam, joining the land reclamation by force to recuperate the territorial land of Kuwait. This led to the warfare after the Iraqis proclaimed assault reached Washington DC.
The first gulf war involving the American armed forces had a secret structure entitled the Desert Storm, and it proved to be successful. This took place between early August and late February of the fiscal years 1990 and 1991 respectively. Despite having thirty-five national states, inhabitants used to refer the Desert Storm as united.
All these nations used diverse code words to refer to the war. On the other hand, people were referring this conflict as the Gulf or Persian Gulf War (Bennis and Michel 35). To make a distinction between the American piloted Iraq War and this conflict, an addition of the first war took place in the year 2003.
The Desert Storm
The original itinerary of the Desert Storm was the 1990 attack of Kuwait by the Iraqi. The United Nation set up trade and industry sanctions in the rejoinder to this invasion. Consequently, George Bush, the head of the United States made stronger the Desert Shield operation through installing troops in Saudi Arabia. The prerequisite for the martial strength that could generate stability in that region was the most important objective of the Desert Shield.
This was by repugnance of troops from Kuwait or perhaps the incursion of Iraq by the American defense forces. Moreover, in order to drive out the Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the United States got hold of the United Nations sustenance for a martial disagreement and congregated a federation force. Similarly, the endorsement for using force in the Persian Gulf by the United States Congress came in place (Johnson 14).
The special chapter of the Desert Storm commenced on 17th, January 1991. In fact, with six days to reach March 1991, the line of attack on land raid started with American dipping several tactical missiles to pave their way. This saw aggressions ending in the late February in that fiscal year.
The speedy retort to the invasion of Iraqi on Kuwait brought about a recreational character in the victory of the unionized operation. This was subsequent to the league forces attributing the hurried conquest trough the management of troops from all over the globe (Murray and Robert, 1992).
The decrease in the number of Iraqis was hard to gauge with the Desert Storm having three hundred and fifty eight in associated fatalities. Sources alleged that the fatalities reported on both troops and the Iraqi city dwellers varied from thirty thousand to a hundred thousand. The US was asked to take over the country and institute an autonomous government.
However, there was reception to leave Hussein Saddam who was an authoritarian in control during the wake of the warfare. Criticism engulfed the United States over this decision. Yet the complexity they encountered during this incursion of Iraq assisted them to remove Saddam Hussein from power twelve years later. This makes us to comprehend the grounds for reluctance of the United States in captivating Iraq in the year 1991.
The Desert Storm Operation had a number of allied disagreements. Some militia used exhausted uranium rounds whereas other federation forces disparaged its use due to the effects of effluence it had on the Iraqi surroundings. In fact, many people argued that these rounds could later develop into the delivery shortcomings and significant bottlenecks in physical condition amongst the citizens of Iraq.
Further, various federation armed forces had a Gulf War Syndrome that was an assemblage disorder (Bennis and Michel 42). It accredited to disclosure of an assortment of chemical weaponry, organic attack, used up uranium, and countless anonymous molestations.
The Desert Storm saw quite a lot of large oil spill in the Persian Gulf. It resulted into considerable dreadful atmospheric conditions in the Iraqi provinces. The Gulf War survivors might commit to memorize the wide-ranging and telecasted live reporting. This incorporated the Iraqi armed forces that were found causing prevalent environmental contamination and setting flames on the oil paddocks (Murray and Robert, 1992).
On the other hand, there came an enormous ground assails after thirty-eight day air operation. This saw the commencement of Desert Operation Saber in both Kuwait and Iraq. The united crowd led by the United States marines crossed the Iraqi boundary after subjecting the Iraqi troops to heartless air assault.
They damaged all that they could imagine as they accurately targeted three sites. The aimed venues were the far west, the Iraqi flanks, and the Kuwait city. It was easy for them to progress to the west and confine thousands of Iraqi fugitives while occupying roughly half of the Kuwait City (Johnson 17). The day one physical attack saw few Americans injured.
The Iraqi Scud armaments in day two of land molest exterminated twenty-eight American militia in Dhahran garrison. The American troops failed to give up and advanced from all facades.
The western line cut off the retreat course of Iraqi Army although the marines drew near the Kuwait city but few deaths were reported. The biggest historical cistern fight emerged in the third day between the Iraqi Republican sentinels and the American militia. All the Iraqi weighty protective coverings faced demolition and after that, they embarked on the Kuwait retreat (Johnson 20).
Before the departure, they set ablaze more than seven hundred oil wells in Kuwait. The long procession of Iraqi troops, inhabitant, and Palestinian populace marched past the Iraqi-Kuwait highway. This enabled the united association to blast the convoy group unremittingly. This gave it name the Highway of Death. Finally, on February 1991, President Bush confirmed a cessation of hostilities to render Kuwait a liberated nation.
In 1991 April, George Bush donated the relief supply airdrops from the United States to northern Iraq and Turkish Kurdish refugee campsites. There was Comfort Task Force Provider configuration and improvement to support the Kurds after Iraq issued its recognition of a cessation of hostilities. The first American Operation Provide Comfort undertaking distributed roughly seventy two thousand pounds of supply (Bennis and Michel 48). This was prior to the construction of the Provide Comfort exhibition area in Iraq near the city of Zakhu.
Conclusion
In conclusion, fighting mandated the United States armed forces to discharge more than seventy one thousand captives from Iraq to the control of Saudi Arabia. Even though America effectively subjugated this warfare, it had its defense forces murdered in the course. Twenty air force combatants in battle and six not in the battle faced death while twenty-four battle and twenty-six outside the battle suffered.
Moreover, six soldiers in the navy battle and eight who were not fighting were laid to rest. However, ninety-eight in addition to one hundred and five army combatants passed away in the battle and outside the battle respectively. Alternatively, the evaluation of Iraqi casualties destined three hundred thousand wounded militia and one hundred thousand troops killed in the Kuwait theatre.
Works Cited
Bennis, Phyllis, and Michel Moushabeck. Beyond the Storm: A gulf Crisis Reader. London: Canongate, 1992. Print.
Johnson, William 1996. U. S. Army Special Forces in Desert Shield/Desert Storm: How Significant an Impact. 2012. Web.
Murray, Williamson, and Robert Scale. The Iraq War: A Military History. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003. Print.
The proliferation of nuclear weapons significantly increases the likelihood of accidents leading to large-scale conflicts between nuclear-armed states such as Russia, the United States, India, Pakistan, and China, among others. Taking into consideration the sheer size of the existing nuclear arsenals, both inadvertent and deliberate war between any of these nations could have disastrous effects on the population of the whole world. This paper argues that because nuclear war is associated with devastating humanitarian consequences, disarmament efforts must be supported by all world governments and societies.
Risk of Nuclear War
In their article titled “Analyzing and Reducing the Risks of Inadvertent Nuclear War Between the United States and Russia,” Barrett et al. explore the possibility of conflict between the United States and Russia (106). The authors argue that concerns about intentional attacks have led both countries to focus on developing counter-attack protocols rather than concentrating on deterrence capabilities (Barrett et al. 106). The findings of the study show that the annual probability of inadvertent war between the United States and Russia on a scale from 0 to 1 “ranges from 0.0001 to 0.05 if excluding launch during low tensions” (Barrett et al. 120). Therefore, it could be argued that despite substantial progress in minimizing the risks of nuclear war, the chances of inadvertent nuclear conflict between the two states are still high. As a result, it is necessary to further explore the impact of such conflicts in order to develop comprehensive strategies for risk reduction that go beyond de-alerting agreements. In fact, the issue of the proliferation and reduction of nuclear armaments is so pressing that President Obama has placed it at the top of the U.S. national security agenda, arguing that it is “a threat that rises above all others in urgency” (Allison 82).
Consequences
The last several decades have been marked by a significant expansion of the body of knowledge concerning the climatic consequences of nuclear war. Climatic models have helped demonstrate how nuclear weapons could completely destroy not only humans but also many other species. Interestingly enough, during the Manhattan Project and throughout the whole period of the Cold War, almost no research was done on the “dust, fire, and smoke effects of nuclear blasts” (Edwards 34). Two independent groups of scientists from Russia and the United States who have studied the consequences of nuclear war have reached the same conclusions: the northern hemisphere would see a drop in surface temperature below freezing within just a couple of days. The researchers have also argued that nuclear war would cover the globe in smoke, destroying agricultural production and bringing “severe consequences for humanity” (Edwards 36).
It is important to realize that even if the threat of a full-scale conflict between the United States and Russia that could result in a nuclear winter was somehow eliminated, the danger of nuclear war between states like India and Pakistan would remain. According to Robock and Toon, India and Pakistan have produced more than 50 nuclear warheads each (77). If the two countries were to release their nuclear arsenal on the biggest industrial areas, the smoke resulting from the blast would disrupt agriculture around the world for ten years (Robock and Toon 77). The researchers have also estimated that the explosion of 50 bombs in India would create four million metric tons of smoke particles, which could cover the surface of the globe in only 49 days (Robock and Toon 77). Another study suggests that a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan could result in a ten to forty percent reduction in maize yields and a two to twenty percent reduction in soybean yields in the midwestern United States (Özdoğan et al. 373). These changes would occur due to the injection of a tremendous amount of elemental carbon into the troposphere, bringing about significant climatic anomalies (Özdoğan et al. 373).
A recent article titled “Long-term Radiation-Related Health Effects in a Unique Human Population: Lessons Learned from the Atomic Bomb Survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki” by Douple et al. summarizes the findings of a research study that lasted for 63 years (124). The study revealed that there is a significant correlation between radiation exposure and increased cancer mortalities among atomic bomb survivors in Japan (Douple et al. 127). Specifically, the scientists have found a relationship between exposure to radiation and the incidence of cancers of the oral cavity, esophagus, stomach, colon, liver, lung, nonmelanocytic skin, breasts, ovary, urinary bladder, and central nervous system (Douple et al. 128). Figure 1 shows radiation-associated deaths per year.
Source: Douple, Evan, et al. “Long-term Radiation-Related Health Effects in a Unique Human Population: Lessons Learned from the Atomic Bomb Survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, vol. 5, no. 1, 2011, pp. 121-133.
Conclusion
Taking into consideration the fact that numerous studies suggest that humanitarian consequences of even a small-scale regional conflict could be devastating, there is a high degree of certainty that no state in the world would be protected from the impact of nuclear war. Therefore, it is necessary to implement a nuclear weapon ban on a worldwide scale. Although many people argue that nuclear-armed states will be unwilling to give up their armaments, the strategic significance of the issue underlines the importance of overcoming resistance to disarmament. Indeed, in order to ensure international security, it is necessary to change the discourse on nuclear weapons.
Barrett, Anthony, et al. “Analyzing and Reducing the Risks of Inadvertent Nuclear War Between the United States and Russia.” Science & Global Security, vol. 21, no. 2, 2013, pp. 106-133.
Douple, Evan, et al. “Long-term Radiation-Related Health Effects in a Unique Human Population: Lessons Learned from the Atomic Bomb Survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, vol. 5, no. 1, 2011, pp. 121-133.
Edwards, Paul. “Entangled Histories: Climate Science and Nuclear Weapons Research.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, vol. 68, no. 4, 2012, pp. 28-40.
Özdoğan, Mutlu, et al. “Impacts of a Nuclear War in South Asia on Soybean and Maize Production in the Midwest United States.” Climatic Change, vol. 116, no. 2, 2012, pp. 373-87.
Robock, Alan and Brian Toon. “Local Nuclear War, Global Suffering.” Scientific American, vol. 61, no. 12, 2011, pp. 74-81.
The argument that there are “New wars” dissimilar to older forms of warfare is not only generalist, but also not supported by existing scholarly and objective literature on the subject. According to Mary Kaldor, “New Wars” differ from older forms of warfare in their goals, methods of implementation and financing.
I believe, and will show objective analysis in the subsequent paragraphs, that the only difference between “New Wars” and older types of warfare exists in the manner of financing; however, the goals and methods of implementation of warfare have remained the same throughout the existence of warfare.
In Kaldor’s view, the goals of the “New Wars” are to increase economic gain and impose identity politics “which is inherently exclusive and tends towards fragmentation” (2006). Identity politics involves a “claim to power on the basis of a particular identity” (Kaldor, 2006).
The imposition of identity politics in “New wars” results in the fragmentation of communities and massive resettlement of populations and refugee movement (for example the aftermath of genocide), so much that the movement of these refuges becomes not a by-product of war, but a central goal of it.
Concerning the methods of implementation of these “New wars”, Kaldor is of the view that during the last decades of the twentieth century, a new type of organized violence that incorporated war, organized violence, and human rights violations emerged.
This includes the “privatization of violence” (Kaldor, 2006) creating a scenario where the instruments and means of war are not held by the state but by War loads, criminal gangs and police forces within a particular state.
On the issue of financing these “New wars”, Kaldor argues that the state no longer mobilizes finances for the wars, but – especially in weak Third world governments – the fighting units finance themselves through plunder, hostage taking and the black market, or independently through trafficking in humans, dealing in drugs and arms trade.
On this matter, as stated in the introduction, I concur with Kaldor’s argument that the only difference between “New wars” and older types is in the modality of financing.
To counter kaldor’s theory concerning the goals and implementation methods of the “New wars”, the first counter-argument concerns the matter of goals of the war. Economic gain has always been the paramount objective of wars, and is not a feature exclusive to “New wars”.
More scrutiny and analysis of wars in contemporary times by “academics, policy analysts, and politicians” (Newman, 2004, p.180) has served to highlight the wars, bringing out deeper dynamics of the wars, but the main objectives like economic gain have always been present.
Even the contemporary factor of multinationals selling weapons to the warring parties serves the same purpose – profiting from war. Furthermore, Identity politics and wars based on fragmenting the society along the lines of race, ethnicity, and religion are as old as war itself.
The Armenian genocide of World War I and the Holocaust of World War II are prime examples. The Rwandan genocide of 1994, a supposed “New War”, has similar features with the two previous genocides, which according to Kaldor, are old types of warfare.
In conclusion, I have presented Kaldor’s “New Wars” theory, identifying its goals, methods and financing. I have argued against its goals and methods, focusing on the argument that both goals and methods can be found throughout history in older forms of warfare.
Various violent conflicts, from the present and past, have been addressed and an analysis of the Rwandan genocide, the holocaust, and the Armenian genocide posed. Moreover, the role of the media and advances in information has been analyzed to show that just because there is much more analysis and discussion about wars nowadays does not necessarily make them ‘new’.
References
Kaldor, M. (2006). New and Old Wars, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity.
Newman, E. (2004). The ‘New Wars’ debate: A historical perspective is needed. Security Dialogue vol. 35(2) 173-189.
Ira Hayes was one of America’s Marine Corps who took part in the Second World War. He was born in Arizona. Ira’s parents practised farming. He was confined to the Reservation, before he was enlisted for the Marine Corps. In the three Pacific battles Ira fought, he displayed a steady character that was a source of admiration to his friends.
He fought to take honour to his family since his chief had insisted that he should become an honourable warrior. It was with full dedication that Ira fought to give meaning to the chief’s words. His childhood at the reservation was normal before the Second World War broke out.
His life changed swiftly after this. He was assigned to parachute battalion after completing a course under the United States Marine Corps Parachutists School. His active participation in Second World War made him part of the American force by 1945. He was fighting the Japanese at the stronghold of Iwo Jima. The US raised America’s flag in 1945 after conquering Iwo Jima that was under Japanese rule. The flag was hoisted at Mount Suribuchi. Ira was one of the six men who participated in raising the flag.
The historical moment was captured by a camera and Ira’s life was transformed. The moment was highly celebrated with a postage stamp and a bronze statue to commemorate the moment. President Roosevelt called the brave warriors who had survived back to United States where Ira was named a hero. However, Ira felt different about the publicity and him being declared a hero. He did not take pride in the commemoration since a substantial number of his colleagues had died in the war (Melton and Dean 56).
This essay will show how Ira participated in the raising of American flag in Iwo Jima Mountain. The impacts of such acts in the history of the Second World War and Japanese control of the Island will be considered. The historical marking of the event after Ira’s flag rising moment through monuments, writings and film creation and their impact will also be discussed.
Ira could not understand why he had to be named a hero, yet his colleagues had died in the War. He felt they did not deserve any form of commemoration. He observed that they did not deserve any adulation since what they had done was not much compared to those who lost their lives.
Ira returned to the reservation after the World War II. His aim was to lead a normal life. His life had dramatically changed and he would get several letters. Some would keep on asking him whether he was the one who raised the flag. His conflict of honour led him to alcoholism. His pain could not be drowned in alcohol. He felt sick and missed his friends who had died in the war. He deeply felt that they were better men than him.
His life never got back to normal. Ira met his death in the year 1955 as a result of exposure. He was buried in Arlington Cemetery section 34. His life was marked with heroism, but he died without marrying. His commemoration in art and music was extensive. This was done before and after his death. He was portrayed in the film Sands of Iwo Jima. In 2006 he got illustrated in the film “Flags of Our Fathers”. The battle of Iwo Jima is highly associated with Hayes due to the role he played in the flag raising.
There are many theories raised to explain the reasons why Ira descended into alcohol after he was declared a hero. Ira is portrayed as a quiet and shy person who was not easy to understand. He was needed in identifying other people in the photograph taken in the mountain. Ordering him back to Washington was a moment he did not enjoy. His life had totally changed and he could not lead the anonymous life that he desired (Melton and Dean 56).
This was a moment that meant a lot to the United States army and the American people at large. It marked the triumph over Japanese. It was part of the victory and supremacy of America in the Second World War. This was later used to stamp authority in areas that United States had interest. The period after the World War II was marked by the flag, with films and other works of art depicting that period.
His unwanted fame after the World War II was captured in the book “The Outsider” that was published by William Bradford Huie four years after his demise. Later on it was discovered that Ira was positive for PSTD. Although his death is considered to have been caused by exposure and poisoning, his brother had a contrary opinion and believed that his death was due to altercation with Setoyant.
The Police Department did not conduct any investigations on the cause of his death. Setoyant denied having fought with Hayes at any moment. In the 1961 film, he is dramatized as having frozen to death on top of Arizona Mountain. In 1993, a commemoration was held to mark the Marine Corps War Memorial (Nash 14).
The marking of the historical moment was of significance to the American people. They largely believed that Ira and other six men showed patriotism by raising the flag.
It was to be understood that the flag symbolized America’s control of the Island. In the history of control of world affairs immediately after the world war, America seemed to have gathered momentum from that day. It was to the interest of the whole country to show its marine power to other nations. The American campaign against countries that looked powerful that time was firmly established after that incidence.
It has been a concern among some of the great historians that the raising of the flag by Ira was a sign of something that the Americans desired. The whole country seemed to appreciate the moment, but for Ira it was more than that. He did not understand why a country would name him a hero, when his friends had died in the war. He did not consider himself a hero. The Japanese side was considerably weakened during that event.
They were left without control of the Island. The preceding days were very memorable and Japan was weakened considerably. It was a turning point and the Second World War took another turn. Few months after Japanese control was taken from the Island, it became clear that the Second World War had lost its meaning and had to come to an end (Hoffman 22).
The countries that had supported Japan in the War surrendered, which acted swiftly in bringing the War to an end. The military might of America was widely acknowledged by the rest of the parties in the War. It was clear that the World War II had made the United States a superpower.
The works of art designed to mark the historical moment were to elaborate how the war was a moment for countries to showcase their military strength. The historical events should have been to remind the country about the effects of war. Ira was not satisfied by a mere hero declaration yet people were dying in the War.
He felt it was a mockery to those who had lost their lives in the War. The unfortunate events of the War indicate that survivors are celebrated while less attention is directed to those who die. Their families bear a lot but that is not put into consideration during the commemorations. Patriotism has always been a cover to make army officers feel that killing in war is justifiable. The commemoration of Ira’s raising of the flag was a very trivial event in the War since there are a lot of significant events that took place before that time.
It should be understood that the event was celebrated by America, but Ira did not seem impressed. The dead should be given a higher class in the classification of heroism since they lost their lives. Losing of lives was an act of heroism. Ira took issues with the fact that the survivors were invited in the white house, while the dead were forgotten. To him, the heroism tag had no meaning bearing in mind that all those who took part in the war could not be equally given credit (Hoffman 129).
Conclusion
The life of Ira Hayes depicts a selfless character devoted to service in the marine. His childhood background shows a quiet person who was shy. Ira’s life took an abrupt change of direction on joining the Marine Corps. The commitment is seen during his service in the marine. His life changed completely upon being awarded the tag of heroism after the raising of the flag.
He looked dissatisfied with the way he was named a hero when the rest of his friends could not make it to Washington. His story gives a side of celebration by the American people, while at the same time he felt that he was not better than his friends who died in the war. His attitude changed and he drowned his contrary thoughts in alcohol.
He could not go back to his normal life since many people sent him letters. His life had lost balance. America benefited greatly from the event since it gained control over the island and Japan was losing balance. This was a different case when it came to the people who had fought in the war. In the world affairs, it has been a lose-win situation whereby many feel that armies are patriots. Survivors have a different story to tell. It is worth noting that the raising of the flag by Ira and his friends was fundamental in the world politics.
Works Cited
Hoffman, Elizabeth Delaney. American Indians and Popular Culture. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 2012. Print.
Melton, Brad, and Dean Smith. Arizona Goes to War: The Home Front and the Front Lines During World War II. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press, 2003. Print.
Nash, Gerald. The American West Transformed: The Impact of the Second World War. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1990. Print.
The Iraqi forces during the Gulf War had a fairly developed system of both air attack and air defense. The main task of the Allied force, in this case, was to neutralize both conventional air targets, as well as enemy ballistic missiles, mainly Scud. Operation Desert Storm is the first combat use of the missile MIM-104C Patriot, which became the backbone of the Allied air defense system. This artillery, in combination with stealth aircraft and a satellite guidance and signal transmission system, constituted effective protection against enemy air attacks.
Iraqi Air-Defense System
The air defense system in Gulf War consisted of artillery and missile launchers, which effectively resisted airstrikes. Radomyski and Bernat (2019) consider air defense “one of the key elements that directly contributed to the final result” (p. 27). Thus, a detailed consideration of the elements of protection is a necessary aspect of the analysis of the strategy. The air defense system established by Saddam’s forces included anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) and surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) (Thompson, 2019). The AAA was used for lower targets, while the SAMs countered higher enemy air attacks using radar. However, the Allies used effective methods to combat these measures. F4 Phantoms with the high-speed anti-radar missile (HARM) in combination with strike aircraft attacked countered SAMs by attacking radars. Apart from F4, HARMs were also carried by “F-15, F-16 CJ, F/A-18, and TORNADO” (Radomyski and Bernat, 2019, p. 33). These missiles were extremely effective in the fight against Iraqi radars and played a key role in the destruction of the enemy’s air defense system. Further, AAA was combatted by ingressing and egressing enemy sites above the active range, as well as directly attacking AAA.
MIM-104C Patriot Missile
Artillery played a significant role in keeping the Allies’ victory over the enemy in the Gulf War. Specifically, Operation Desert Storm was the first to use the latest MIM-104C Patriot missile system (Collind, 2019). These installations were used to target and destroy Scud missiles that are part of the Iraqi defense system. During the conflict, the Iraqi military forces used “thousands of surface-to-air missiles, as well as shoulder-fired anti-aircraft weapons” (Tirpak, 2020). Moreover, there were over 150 anti-aircraft artillery and air defense missiles, as well as over 700 tactical aircraft (Tirpak, 2020). However, thanks to the point fire of the Allied artillery, these threats were quickly destroyed. Scud missiles were priority targets of the air-defense system of the allies, as they represented a great danger.
The main Allied artillery air defense in the conflict was the MIM-104C Patriot, which was involved in all strategic defense plans. These missiles “were deployed to defend key strategic assets in Saudi Arabia and Israel from attack by Iraq’s Scuds and other short-range ballistic missiles” (Wiernicki, 2017). The principle of operation of the protection system based on Patriot is to lock the target at the final stage of the approach. Further, the system transmits the signal through the TVM communication lines using ground radar to the station to correct the course (Patriot missile, n.d). After correcting the course, the return signal is transmitted to the missile. The MIM-104C Patriot has a range of over 70 km and a missile flight altitude of over 24 km (Patriot missile, n.d). The minimum projectile flight time is estimated at less than 9 seconds, while the maximum flight distance will take about 3.5 minutes (Patriot missile, n.d). Artillery in the conflict was supported by other technologies without which the detection and targeting of enemy Scuds would have been impossible.
Additional effectiveness in the fight against the enemy Scuds was provided by the Lockheed F-117, which was used for discreet targeting and attack on strategically important points of the enemy (Mansky, 2016). These aircraft supported Allied artillery for the covert detection of Iraqi missiles. Additionally, the transmission of signals for correcting the course of the MIM-104C Patriot missiles required communication with satellites, as well as a satellite guidance system (Anti-aircraft missile, n.d). It is noteworthy that information about the trajectory of the projectile should have been received by the system at least 90 seconds before the appearance of the enemy missile on the radar (Anti-aircraft missile, n.d). Thus, “the interception was performed at altitudes of 5-10 km at a distance of 7-15 km from the battery position” (Anti-aircraft missile, n.d). Often, the warhead of the enemy attack was not destroyed but changed the trajectory of flight, and the fragments could reach the target when intercepted close to it.
The use of the Patriot complex in real combat conditions made it possible to identify the weak points of the batteries. For example, the probability of hitting a target in a real conflict ranged from 0.4 to 0.5, while 0.8-0.95 was the probability shown in tests (Anti-aircraft missile, n.d). Additionally, the Patriot often destroyed the Scud directly on the ground, which increased the damage to the target of the attack. Thus, the system was insufficiently effective against tactical ballistic missiles but well countered conventional air targets.
Conclusion
A combination of stealth, satellite, and missile technology systems became the basis for the Allied forces’ victory over the Iraqi army. Despite an effective air defense system established by the Iraqis, the MIM-104C Patriot countered both conventional air targets and enemy Scuds. By using stealth aircraft for targeting and stealthy attack on targets, as well as satellite guidance systems, the Allied forces managed to avoid many losses.
Iraq-Kuwait war began in the year 1990. The conflict escalated following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. During this conflict, Iraq’s soldiers invaded Kuwait, raped, looted, and killed resisting Kuwaitis on the spot (King, 1991).
It is alleged that the world learned about these atrocities from Kuwaitis who managed to escape to the neighbouring countries unharmed. Following the brutal attacks, the US was forced to intervene. Before the onset of the war, the US had made a decision that it was no longer going to engage in foreign military affairs after its devastating experience in Vietnam War (King, 1991).
The US government mobilized its allies to come to the defence of Kuwait in an operation named Operation Desert Shield. During this operation, several countries took different roles in the alliance. Among those who supported this operation were some of the Arab countries who believed that Iraqis expansion was a threat in the Middle East (King, 1991). This paper seeks to highlight the role of United Arab Emirates, UAE, in the war.
Initially, UAE’s operations in the Middle East were considered to have fuelled the Iraq- Kuwait conflicts during the early 1990s (Grossman, 1995). As such, Kuwait and UAE were disrespecting the OPECS directive by flooding the world markets with oil. By doing so, the two countries lowered the oil prices in the world markets.
Since Iraq had not regained its economic stability following the Iraq- Iran war, the UAE and Kuwait’s actions in the oil market worsened their economic situations. With the two countries disrespecting the OPEC’s directives and the dire economic situation in Iraq, Saddam Hussein was forced to attack Kuwait. Saddam’s acts were meant to reduce the UAE and Kuwait’s oil exports in the world market. Through this, the UAE is said to have contributed to the Iraq- Kuwait conflicts (Grossman, 1995).
Previously, during the Iran-Iraq war, UAE was reluctant in joining the conflicts. However, during the Kuwait-Iraq war the country was forced to reverse its previous policy and join forces with its allies in liberating Kuwait. Before the onset of the war, UAE was among the first Arab countries to object the plans by President Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait. Its defence forces officials joined forces with American forces and drafted a plan, which were to prevent Hussein’s forces from further attacks in Kuwait.
Two weeks before the operation, UAE and the US conducted an air refuelling rehearsal program in an effort to warn the Iraqis government against their military ambitions. During this period, the UAE defence forces availed its personnel to play active roles in the Operation Desert Storm. Through this, the country contributed its air force personnel as pilots. Notably, UAE pilots joined the allied forces in major air attacks across Iraq.
Through this effort, Iraq’s infrastructure, communication facilities, military bases, and naval bases were destroyed. Equally, through the concerted effort by the UAE forces, American forces, and their allied forces, Iraq’s aircraft and air force facilities were destroyed within the first few weeks of Operation Shield Desert.
Throughout the operation, the UAE ground forces were estimated to be about 2000. With the effort of these individuals, the allied forces managed to conquer the Iraqi forces on the ground as air raids were being carried out. Most of the ground forces were situated in Kuwait. They were mandated to thwart Iraqis from retreating to Iraq with Kuwait’s properties.
Other than providing the military personnel, UAE provided the Americans with military bases during the gulf war. Before this war, US military bases across the gulf region were few and ill equipped. However, during the gulf war the US military presence in the region increased with the setting up of more bases in UAE, Saudi Arabia and other American allied countries in the region (Metz, 1994).
From the UAE’s bases, American forces were able to destroy Iraqis positions with ease. The US and the allied forces’ aircrafts, warships and other military facilities were stationed in the UAE and other US allied nations within the gulf region.
Equally, during the war the UAE government provided the allied forces with financial support. According to the country’s defense reports, UAE contributed $3.3 billion towards the liberation of Kuwait during the onset of the war (Metz, 1994). By mid 1991, the country had pledged to support countries who were involved in the operation.
Through this, their defense spending reached $6 billion on November 1991. The country initiated this move to help the involved countries recover their economic losses resulting from this operation. To meet these huge military spending, the country increased its oil exports and prices during the period.
By the end of the war, the UAE had played a crucial role towards the liberation of Kuwait. At the end, the country realized that its defense system was inadequately prepared to tackle external military challenges. Similarly, after the war the GCC acknowledged that it lacked the military resources to defend their member states from external military attacks (Rugh, 2002). As a result, the UAE entered into an agreement with the US and the French governments to support its military with expertise and equipments.
References
Grossman, M. (1995). Encyclopedia of the Persian Gulf War. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO.
King, J. (1991). The Gulf War. New York: Dillon Press.
Metz, H. C. (1994). Persian Gulf states: country studies (3rd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Federal Research Division, Library of Congress .
Rugh, W. A. (2002). Diplomacy and defense policy of the United Arab Emirates. Abu Dhabi, U.A.E.: Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research.
The following essay will show how the Stalingrad battle, ordered by Hitler, was just but the turning point of war in World War II. This is because it was the end of a perception the world had, that Germany was the most powerful nation and could win every war. This will be into comparison with other instances when Hitler had attacked other parts of the world.
The Stalingrad Battle
By mid 1942, Germany had cost Russians tremendous losses in terms of resources and work force given that the former had managed to kill over three million Russian soldiers and putting almost a similar number in captivity. Were it not for winter that pushed them back a bit, Germans had captured around ninety percent of Russian land and resources. By the beginning of summer, Hitler was again ready to attack Russia taking advantage of their weak status due to the tremendous losses he had cost them earlier on.
The Stalingrad battle began in September 1942 during the winter, led by the “German commander of the sixth army, General Paulus and assisted by Fourth Panzer Army”; indeed, General Paulus was ordered by Hitler to take Stalingrad whose initial target was to capture the oil fields at Caucasus and their final target was Baku[1], which supplied seventy-one percent of all the oil the Soviets used during Word war II.
Hitler’s other reason for capturing Stalingrad was due to its association with Russia as well as its connection to the south waterway. Thus by seizing Stalingrad, he would have paralyzed Russia by a great deal. All his interest on Stalingrad was accelerated by the fact that he was interested in damaging the name of his enemy Stalin who was the Soviet dictator and the city was named after his name.
For a long time, the world was convinced that Germany had the best and strongest army, meaning they could win any war. The contrast of this began during Red Verdun war in 1918, two years before World War I ended[2].
In 1916, the cream of Germany army engaged French in a battle that failed terribly and since then, problems began since most its followers withdrew, divisions in the army began which finally collapsed, thus it had no future. Their enemies “Anglo-American-French bloc,” did not realize that they were approaching victory and they “continued believing that the German army was still the most powerful”[3].
The Stalingrad battle is different in nature from Red Verdun battle since it was the Germans last expression of a desperate struggle. The Soviet army won this battle and it was not only the turning point in the World War II but in the history of humankind.
Sixty five percent of all casualties in the war were Russian. It was Russia blood, machinery, resources and will which brought Hitler down. This is evident from the fact that, when Stalin appointed the two best military commanders, they vowed to either liberate Stalingrad or die with so much determination.
Millions of people in the world followed the proceedings of Stalingrad carefully and every step the Soviet army made brought to them anxiety and stirred elation throughout the world[4]. After this defeat, the German army was in full retreat because it had lost a lot thus it was so weak such that it would take a long time to recover of which Russia was still advancing..
During his battles, before e.g. in Poland, Norway, Holland, Belgium, and France, where he definitely won, Hitler never dared to divide his attention but always directed all his concentration to one major objective. Contrary, during the Stalingrad battle, Hitler had divided attention because by the time he ordered attack of the city, some groups of his army were still on their way to Caucasus and he was still preparing others for a succeeding attack of Siberia.
It was therefore unwise to advance having left a major city unconquered[5]. Were Hitler not divided; his sixth army would not have been intertwined at Stalingrad. The city of Stalingrad was named after the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin who was a great enemy to Hitler.
Germany almost overthrew Russia but they failed to exercise their authority. Hitler had dismissed his commander in chief and had taken the role himself without any consultation thus this confusion made it hard for the army to defeat Soviet, which was very organized and determined.
Both armies were well equipped with soldiers, artillery guns, tanks, and planes thus, though Germany was thought to be stronger, they would capture areas during the day, but Russia would recapture them at night. Russian commander at the time was Marshal Zhukov.
For them to be defeated, Germans were trapped in Stalingrad city by a bulk of Zhukov army who had surrounded the city. Paulus could have been able to get out of the trap in the fist stages of Russians preparation but Hitler ordered them to fight up to the last bullet. When the momentum of the battle was fully with the Soviets, Hitler refused to let Paulus retreat since he never wanted to bear the blame.
Their capture was accelerated by the fact that when they were surrounded in the city, it was hard for them to be supplied with food, ammunition, and heat since the winter temperatures were reading negative. Left with no choice, they surrendered to the Soviet army and were taken as prisoners.
Germany began to retreat since their defeat in Stalingrad. This is because they lost labor when 91 000 Germans were taken prisoners and they lost their army and equipment meaning they could not be able to fight the Soviet Union any more. This was the downfall of the world’s most powerful army, which had purposed to conquer the whole world thus their downfall was a complete liberation to the human race and a turning point in the World-war II.
The battle of Stalingrad was the bloodiest battle in history and a sudden and widespread disaster of Germany. It was one of the most inhuman and cruel during the World War 2 since people fought literally from street to street and house to house[6].
It was a titanic battle where Stalin’s very name was a target, whereby, every street, house, and floor had to be painstakingly taken. It was the end of the last major gain of territory by the Axis on either front, from then on forward all the major attacks and offensives were a combined effort. Germany was a super power before 1914 but by 1945, it was a second world nation.
This is because the invasion of the Soviet Union drained most of their resources. The Germans were completely unprepared for war and if it were not for the long distances and terrible winters, the Soviet Union would have probably lost. The diaphanous numbers of work force and increasing production finally turned the tide.
After Germany’s failure to take Stalingrad, their Eastern front army was practically destroyed and they were forced to flee the Soviet Union[7]. This turned the War in putting the Russians on the offensive, which directly aided in the destruction and conquering of Germany by the Allied Forces throughout 1944 and 1945.
Germany was, essentially, surrounded with the Americans and British in the West, and the Russians in the East. Before Stalingrad Hitler was still on course to win the war in the European theatre but afterwards, he was on the back foot considering the number of troops that were engaged and that died[8].
Clearly, the battle was a major strategic mistake by Hitler since it wasted vital German resources. Hitler should have concentrated all forces in Southern Russia and used them to capture the vital oil fields of the Caucasus’s since oil was the lifeblood of all the mechanized tanks, planes, and trucks that the Soviet union used during World war II. In Stalingrad, the Germans were bogged down and lost all their previous advantages such as mobility, firepower and aircraft cover.
Despite taking 90% of the city, the Russians held on, and since they well conversant with the winter season, they were able to encircle the city, rendering Germans helpless. Thousands of men had been trapped and surrounded and the first German field marshal had been taken prisoner in history – a major propaganda coup for Stalin and a slap in the face for Hitler.
Had Soviets lost Stalingrad, they would have lost the war, and the raw material they needed would have fallen into the hands of Germans. This is because their target, Stalingrad and Baku were the major suppliers of oil and other necessities Soviet were using during the World War II.
The Downfall of Hitler
The downfall of Germany came from poor leadership. This is because when the Germans were attacking Russia for the second time, Hitler decided to taken up the role of his Generals and he consulted them no more. Earlier on, the German military had purposed to continue evading the already weak Russian army and to crush the remaining ones as well as capturing the Russia capital city.
Furthermore, they were to capture the rich oil fields Caucasus as well as Stalingrad, the main industrial and transportation centre that was the main waterway of inner Russia. Their aim was not to occupy Stalingrad but to put it under heavy surveillance to ensure that no businesses were operating.
The biggest mistake that Hitler did was his decision to remain in Stalingrad after being deceived by the fact that they had achieved their first objective as per their plans, thus he thought the Russians would not counter attack. His decision lead to heavy losses since he lost the southern campaign and his army was destroyed. All this was because of taking power to himself since he never listened to them and he insisted that they were to fight until the last bullet[9].
The other reason that leads to the downfall of Hitler and his army was divided interest. He was over confident due to his previous success in the western front and thus he decided to conquer the outstretched Soviet Union in three months. This made him disperse his army through the large socialist nation since he wanted to achieve his objectives very fast and still conquer Moscow to the north and Persian Gulf to the south.
At the same time, he had dismissed his commander-in-chief and he was still directing a Japanese fascist that was preparing to attack Siberia after the fall of Stalingrad. All these tasks divided his attention making it hard for him to perfect the matter at hand. At the end of that summer, Hitler had not achieved any of his objectives since he was too ambitious. He was not able to penetrate the oil fields nor did he capture Stalingrad, thus his army was left unable to advance or to retreat causing immense losses[10].
When Russians realized that it was so evident from the look of things that they would loose their city to Germans, Stalin came up with a very brilliant strategy that drew Hitler towards destruction[11]. He realized that the only thing that would save Russia was a good leadership.
He therefore chose two superb commanders with highest military skills and strong will i.e. General Zhukov at national level and Vasily Chuikov at local level. They vowed to either defend the city or die. Since Germany, leadership was weak and Hitler had already dismissed his commander in chief, this counter attack swept them off the ground and the result was that hundreds of thousands of their military men were killed though the damages and killings were both way traffic.
Conclusion
The Soviet Union victory against Germany was the beginning of liberation of humankind from the hands of a dictator Hitler. The Germans were thought to be the most powerful nation in the world and even at the verge of their defeat; they still under estimated the Russian resources. The Russians did their preparation for the counter attack very carefully, putting every detail of their internal organization in perspective, as they knew that a slight mistake would bestow victory upon their rivals.
On the other hand, by the time, Germans realized the ability in Russia, there was little left to do apart from surrendering. Furthermore, the nature of dictatorship in Hitler cost Germany a great deal since he dismissed the opinions of professionals making it hard for them to operate. Actually, after they were defeated, Hitler announced a mourning day to accomplish his blame game over his army commander Paulus.
Apart from its losses, German army lost its formidable image of being unbeatable. Out of the hundreds of thousands of Germans militia who went for war, only five thousand went home safe. Indeed, around three hundred thousand soldiers from Germany died in Stalingrad thus indicating how terribly the Germans had lost the battle to the Russians. The Soviet victory boosted their morale a great deal and fought with vigor until the end of World War II, which lasted almost three years since the defeat of Germany.