Post one Submarine Warfare The North Atlantic There are nume.docx

Post one: Submarine Warfare: The North Atlantic
There are numerous instances of divided loyalties towards the
government and personal morality in the video. The first
illustration is when Pulaski, one of the survivor soldiers
strongly disagrees with how the government is treating them. He
condemns the government for its small appreciation and
acknowledgment of their situation. Also, Pulaski does not agree
with the fact that the government gave them medals as a symbol
of heroism. In his point of view, he thinks that the government
was not fair by awarding them medals only as he believes they
deserve more than what they got. Another illustration of
disloyalty is when the navy captain approaches Pulaski’s house
and asks him to participate in a governmental duty, and he
strongly disagrees acknowledging the needs of his wife. This is
a clear indication that Pulaski is not loyal to the government,
and he is has a high personal morality. Pulaski is experiencing a
significant impact of war as he is nervous or afraid the horrible
experience of war.
Yes, I have experienced a similar a situation. In 2009, I
experienced a terrific road accident. Images from the incident
were horrible, shocking and disturbing. Until today, I use
specific drugs to help me sleep as I experience nightmares with
images from that day.
Post two: Island Combat: Iwo Jima
The use of deadly force as a means of conflict resolution is
acceptable when the cause is right, the defending of one’s home
justifies the use of lethal force. In order to stop intruders or
invading armies, it is justifiable to take up arms to deter the
invaders from imposing their will on the people a certain area.
Conflict resolution takes many forms, negotiation is one of the
tools that help in the resolution of conflict since both sides are
able to air their grievances. At the event that one side does not
want to consider addressing the grievances of the other side and

instead seeks to impose its will and dominance on it, then the
other party is justified to take up arms against this intimidating
party. When backed into a corner with no means of exit from
such a situation, the use of lethal force is warranted since the
survival of the party or individual relies on such force in order
to resolve the conflict. The use of deadly force as a means of
conflict resolution is only justifiable after the exhaustion of all
the avenues that may lead to amicable conflict resolution, the
two parties need to hear each side out before deciding to take up
arms against the other party. The survival instinct of the
individuals or parties also helps justify the use of lethal force,
if the party or individual feels threatened and is not in an equal
standing with the aggressor then his stance in taking up arms
against the mightier force is justifiable since the question of
survival is at hand. The loss of life and property, and the
resulting instability has the capability to bring a nation down to
its knees overnight.
Resistance and war are as a result of disagreements between
two parties thus forcing both sides to pick up arms against the
other party. War and resistance do not justify the use of lethal
force since there are numerous channels which can be pursued
in order to reach an amicable solution. The two parties should
completely exhaust all the avenues of conflict resolution, they
should seek help from other parties in order to help them to
incorporate ideas and suggestions that are sound and objective.
The deliberation between these disagreeing parties should not
be driven by blame games, they should seek solutions and
remedies to the problems at hand rather than dealing with the
past thus ensuring that the bitterness and contempt does not
have a place in the conflict resolution efforts. The use of deadly
force in conflict resolution only begets more conflict since it
cultivates emotions of anger and resentment towards the party
believed to be the aggressor. The use of lethal force does not
end the cycle of violence, instead it fuels it thus making it a
common norm. The cycle of violence does not end with war or
resistance since the presence of war or resistance on leads to the

creation of victims thus leading to the formation of emotions
that are fueled by anger and rage towards the parties believed to
be the aggressors. These emotions lead to the propagation of
more violence citing revenge as the motive since the victims
believe that they have the right to retaliate in order to obtain
vengeance for their fallen and the damages they received as a
consequence of the actions of the aggressor. The human cycle of
vengeance has proven to be continuous and everlasting since the
cycle always has victims that feel that they need to avenge their
fallen. The only remedy to conflict is attainable through the use
of conflict resolution tools that do not resort to the use of lethal
force.
Post Three: The Bosnia War
The Bosnian War
The Bosnian war was between Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was a
territorial conflict in which Bosnian Serbs wanted to establish
their own republic. The creation of Autonomous Serb Regions
in Yugoslavia and Bosnia was not recognized. The position
angers Bosnian Serbs whose forces began firing at Sarajevo
thereby driving the Bosnian people out of the city. The situation
deteriorated when the Bosnian Serbs took control of 70 percent
of the area and NATO forces intervened by shooting down of
Bosnian Serb planes. It would be protracted leading to losses of
many lives.
Response Question One
The UN is thought to have a calming effect. In the Bosnian war,
the UN headquarters had to be located in Sarajevo, a place that
would be neutral because it was a multicultural city inhabited
by Bosnian Serbs, Bosnians, Bosnian Orthodox and Catholics.
The UN could also be capable of humanitarian aid by operating
from Sarajevo and ensuring the stability of safe regions. It is
essential that the United Nations remains neutral so as to ensure
that it enhances its credibility. There are tensions between the

East and the West and the UN has to be level headed to enhance
stability.
Response Question Two
The UN allowed Srebrenican to be over run by Bosnian Serbs
killing around 7,000 men and boys, with a majority being
Bosnian Muslims. Apparently, the UN failed to boost the
number of officers protecting the people at the safe area. The
conflict would have been ended earlier if the UN would have
allowed the Bosnian Serbs to have their own republic as they
first agreed in the referendum but only have them either in
Yugoslavia or Bosnia to avoid two republics with the same
people who would lead to tension from the Croatians and
Muslim Bosnians and Serbs. Also, the UN would not have
applied the neutrality perspective since there were people from
many backgrounds. They would have asked for more
reinforcement with more security forces.
Post Four: Trench Warfare: France, 1917
Germany declared a war against France.
In 1914, Germany declared a war against France. Soon after,
France declared war against Germany. France readied their
troops to move into the Alsace and Lorraine provinces, its
provinces forfeited to end the Franco-Prussian war. France
fought to regain the territory that was achieved while there were
adverse results from the war. For instance, areas of Northern
France had the infrastructure badly damaged. France emerged as
the leading land power in the entire Europe. France also
suffered multiple causalities in the war. They however
pressurized the Germans since they wanted the custody of the
Rhineland. The French wanted the region separated from
Germany.
One of the biggest flaws that led to the war between the French
and the Germanys was the failure to establish discrete
international boundaries. The French and the Germanys were
fighting over the ownership of provinces that were in contention
while there existed controversies about how the Germans came
to own the regions. There was also the pressure to join blocks.

There was a desire for Nazi Germans to assert their military
might without any alignment while the French were part of the
allies.
In the contemporary world, there is a still a likelihood that
countries can go into war because of territorial control. There is
still disputed ownership of islands between China and Japan
that also makes the US side with Japan. There is an escalation
of tension especially when a country issues orders of a no-
flying zone. The only possible cure is in bilateral talks between
countries to trace who rightfully owns certain sections instead
of resorting to military interventions. However this is the
expectation, it is a difficult one as the countries themselves may
be unwilling to begin talks.
Post Five: Urban Stalingrad
World War II was referred to as Wehrmacht.
The German Army that took part in the World War II was
referred to as Wehrmacht. It was mostly comprised of the
regular German armed forces. However, it was later
demobilized and dissolved in 1946. The army also comprised of
the Navy and the Air Force. Approximately, about 18 million
soldiers served in the Wehrmacht; 10 million of whom became
casualties. During the expansion by Adolf Hitler, the German
troops continued to develop new concepts that pioneered during
the First World War. The German army made use of tactical and
operational methods such as the battle of annihilation and
encirclements. The German army had quick victories in the first
couple of years of the Second World War.
The difference in behavior within the German army can be
attributed to ideological and situational factors. Critics have
argued that the racist Nazi stereotypes and indoctrination should
be fully integrated in the chaotic context of explaining the
behavior of German troops. There were no clear military or
government orders that could regulate criminal behavior
towards various groups of war prisoners. Many of the atrocities
were committed by the elite German troops or Nazi military
troops. These troops were already being held accountable for

excesses and racist behaviors as well as mass murders in the
1940s. However, some German officers managed to prevent
some of these atrocities from occurring.
Researchers have linked these events to the absence of
governmental or military guidelines for the German army on the
treatment of war prisoners, in addition to situational and
ideological factors. The film has attempted to integrate the
singularity of the atrocities in the concept of an informal war
that was waged by the German army during the Second World
War. There were two type of warfare that was conducted by the
German troops. This provides a short-lived historical
orientation of how the German soldiers behaved during World
War II.
There is the integration of the concept of Nazi racism in the
German warfare campaign. However, this idea has not yet been
typically assessed by conventional military history. Critics have
proposed new and interesting interpretation of German troops’
behavior during World War II.
The overall portray of racism stereotypes and prejudices in the
film are precise and well contextualized. The film has attempted
to integrate the long existing racism stereotypes into the film’s
events and causes. There is a need to assess the evolution of
racist stereotypes in Germany. Going back to the colonialism in
West Africa provides more contexts for the explanation of racist
behavior in the World War II. The racist German stereotypes
have been linked to the French army during the First World
War. In the film, racism has been shown to be part of the
German culture during and before the World War II. Racism
tendencies were known to be frequently employed by Nazis
after the outbreak of World War II. This could explain the
behavior of the German troops during the war.
Even though the film cites some important aspects for assessing
the behavior of German troops that resulted in such atrocities,
the analysis of various motivations could have gone deeper.
There could be a psychological pattern of dehumanization that
led to massacres. However, this attempt in explaining the

behavior of German troops presents some methodological limits.
These limits present questions on whether dehumanization and
authorization allowed the atrocities in the Second World War.
Post six: Resistance to Tyranny: Hitler
Resistance movements are like campaigns that are held by civil
rights people when they want to be heard on certain issues that
are affecting them in different areas. Most resistance
movements are done as a way to air their grievances in a much
peaceful and calm way than the violent ways. To resist is to
refuse to do something and hence, resistant movements were
done to protest in a silent way and a much more calm way but
still pass the information to the leaders. The reason why
resistance works or is useful in many instances is that it is not a
violent way. During the world war, people used strength so as to
voice their grievances to the leaders. They would refuse to go to
work or even eat as a form of protest on matters that they felt
were oppressive to them and their good being. When people
resist doing something they cannot be forced hence for them to
go back to work, their employers have to meet their demand and
expectations. Many resistance movements were much more
peaceful and bore more fruits, or the results were seen than
cases of strikes or where violence was used. During the time of
Hitler people resisted his way of reign or ruling. By resistance,
that is how they got to be heard and to air their grievances and
problems. Resistance movements were being held by war
protesters to air their issues so that the leaders could take an
action on what was affecting the people. Mainly resistance
movements yield results that were intended not because they are
peaceful but because their primary aim is not to cause a riot but
to express what they feel and also to ask for what they want
from their leaders.
I previously thought that resistance was not an effective way to
end the war but seeing what happened in Hitler and tyranny, I
can say that opposition can stop the war and bring peace. Most
fights happen may be because people do not want to do what
they are asked to do by the leaders and that will lead to them

resisting what they are asked to do. In the case of tyranny and
Hitler, there was resistance that led to the people get what they
were requesting for and what they had hoped to get. I used to
think that resistance leads to more war because the leader is not
happy with the actions of the people.
However, because resistance movements are meant to bring
change, that is why when applied they bring change. For
example in a place of work where one does not like how they
are being treated they can result in resistance. I prefer
resistance to strikes and other violent ways of seeking justice or
attention. When people refused to work this lead to the
resistance movement, then their actions are taken seriously. I
can recall one day I saw some industry workers resist being
inspected at the gate because it was inappropriate. At the end of
the day, it paid fruits as their resistance led to a change in how
things are done. My view of resistance changed one I realized
that it is a better way of asking for change than to strive or
cause havoc. Many people get results just from them resisting
than from them using force. I can also relate to the time of the
world war how the people resisted being conquered and what
happened is that they were given their freedom when they had
resistance movements than when they tried to fight back. Hence,
I change my view of strength as it yields positive results than
other methods to stop the war.
References
https://ils121.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/film-analysis-
terminology-a-guide-from-yale-university/
Hamerow. T.S (1997) On the Road to the Wolfs Lair: Germany
Resistance to Hitler Retrieved
From: http://www.books.google.com

Post seven: Resistance to Occupation: Algeria
Difference in Reaction between Iraq and Algeria
Countries react differently when they have been occupied or
invaded by mightier powers. Algeria and Iraq were not an
exception when they were occupied by French and United States
respectively. The forum discusses how the reaction of Algeria
to French occupation differed from that of Iraq to the United
States.
It is imperative to note, although both Algeria and Iraq
resisted the invasion of their countries, they did that for
different reason. First and foremost, the Algeria was first
occupied French in 1830 where they imposed their French rule.
This resulted into influx of Europeans in the region mainly
working class and peasant farmers mostly from Italy, France
and Spain. Consequently, they took ownership of the most land
of the native Algerian. The French expanded their influence to
the southern suppressing resistance and establishing
Christianity to replace Muslim which was a dominant religion
(Dunwoodie, 1998).
As a result the Algerian decided to put a fierce
resistance against the French who were discriminating their
Islam region and tradition. Abd al Qadir led the resistance
against the French and later on managed to occupy two-thirds of
Algeria. However, he was later defeated by French troops. Other
resistance came up in Eastern Algeria in the Kabylie region and
spread to the whole country. This was triggered by the French
extending their colonial rule to independent self-governing
reserve and violations of agreements signed between them and
the French. It should be noted, this was considered as religious
war at some point. This made the natives to be treated like
subjects because of their religion. This culminated into anger
and hatred towards French government (Dunwoodie, 1998).
On the other hand, the American troops occupied Iraq
for a mission which was totally different from that of French
invasion. The American under the Bush administration occupied

Iraq in 2003. This was after they suspected that Saddam Hussein
regime was manufacturing weapons of massive destruction. The
Coalition forces under the leadership of the United States
occupied Iraq and moved on swiftly to establish control in the
major cities. In contrast to French occupation, the American
occupation was marked by resistance from militia groups but
the transitional government of Iraq supported them. These
groups organized attacks on the Coalition forces as well as the
government of Iraq. This marked a major difference with all
Algerians who were fighting a common enemy; French. More
importantly, there was no established government as the
different regions established their independent authority (Ricks,
2006).
Furthermore, the Algerians were resisting against
discrimination based on religion and traditions whereas the Iraq
militia groups were launching attacks on American troops due
to the fact they supported the government (Dunwoodie, 1998).
This is a great demonstration that Iraq had mixed reactions
against the American invasion. The civil war in Iraq also
contributed to this reaction as different groups including the
government of Iraq perceived the occupation of Americans
differently. There were group of Iraq people who supported the
American invasion and others resisted. In the supported them.
These groups organized attacks on the Coalition forces as well
as the government of Iraq. This marked a major difference with
all Algerians who were fighting a common enemy; French. More
importantly, there was no established government as the
different regions established their independent authority (Ricks,
2006).
From the essay, it is evident that, although both
Algeria and had some element of resistance with occupation of
French and American in their country, they reacted differently.
Resistance of the Algeria was based on religious discrimination
and grabbing of land. On the other hand, in Iraq there was no
common ground for resisting the Coalition forces. Others
resisted them for fear of foreign domination and control and

others for supporting the transitional government. They
received collaboration from the transitional government.
: Reference
Dunwoodie, P. (1998). Writing French Algeria. Clanderon Press
Ricks. T.E. (2006) Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in
Iraq. Penguin press
IR-Research II. (Four pages)
Note: I send you seven post, to choose one and to do this
assignment,
Assignment Instructions
This assignment is a take-home essay of about four pages,
designed to measure your knowledge and assimilation of the
material we have covered in IRLS507. You will be asked to
choose your best initial post in the Instructor Forum of any
week, then to revise and further document it to make it into a
"publishable piece." Your revisions should also include what
you have learned from your independent study in the Yale Film
School, revisions that deal with the more technical aspects of
film making. Please put your new material in italics so that I
don't have to search for it.
https://ils121.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/film-analysis-
terminology-a-guide-from-yale-university/

Post one Submarine Warfare The North Atlantic There are nume.docx

Post one Submarine Warfare The North Atlantic There are nume.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from aryan532920

More from aryan532920 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Post one Submarine Warfare The North Atlantic There are nume.docx