Search Our Essay Database

Essay Instructions: Please start with an introduction. You need to consider a certain view, the basic alternatives are completely to agree with the quoted statement or view set forth, or completely disagree with it. Taking these as polar extremes, A and B, draw an imaginary line between them. Every possible answer to the question will lie along the line between A and B.
Decide where on the imaginary line you think the best answer lies. To make your argument as strong as possible, try pushing your answer towards on end of the line- A. If the evidence makes this seem inappropriate, try pushing your answer in the other direction- B. This may take you beyond what the evidence will bear. If so, stop and go back to where you feel comfortable. You may find yourself at one end of the line or the other- A or B. Be sure to have evidence to support your case. You may also find you are most comfortable at the very middle of the line. But whatever you are on the line, your job is to persuade the reader that this and and not any other place offers the best answer to the question.
Construct your first paragraph with three components. First, in a sentence or two- no more- explain the historical issue you are addressing. Second, assuming you have settles on a position between points A and B but closer to B, explain the claims made for point A and what value they have. You may wish to mention authorities whose historical writing places them at or near A. Third, end the paragraph by explaining in a single sentence where along the line you believe the best answer lies and very briefly why. It is no exaggeration to say that a good essay stands or falls on a good first paragraph.

If, as you have indicated in the first paragraph, there is some merit in the explanation at point A, deal with it in the second paragraph in order to get it out of the way. If you are satisfied that there is no merit in the explanation at point A, explain to your reader why not. Now you can focus on the points that justify your position close(r) to B.

Build strong arguments. Include precise examples.

Strong conclusion. Sums up all the important points.

Please include the book of Robert Boyce " The Great interwar Crisis"
Please include footnotes, a lot of them please.

Essay Instructions: I need Argumentative Paper on :During the interwar period a number of people advocated major changes in military doctrine and organizations. Using the references listed below, discuss the role of the indvidual advocates for change: did they facilitate or inhibit such change?

There were many airpower advocates but the most important ones were Giulio Douhet, Hugh Trenchard and Billy Mitchell, of them Billy Mitchell facilitated change in that era through the idea of air reconnaissance, and inhibited change through his vocal opinion that led to his court martial.

My focus is on Billy Mitchell Air power visions.

USE ONLY REFERENCE PROVIDED
Douhet, Giulio. "Aerial Warfare". In The Command of the Air. USAF Warrior Studies. Washington DC: Office of Air Force History, 1983.

Stephen, Alan. "The True Believers: Airpower Between the Wars." In The Wars in the Air:1914-1994. Edited By Alan Stephens, 29-43. Maxwell Airforce Base, AL: Air University Press, 2001.

Murray Williamson A. "Strategic Bombing: The British, American, and German Experiences." In Military Innovation in the Interwar Period. Edited by Williamson A. Murray and Allan R. Millet, 96-143. Cambridge University Press, 1996.

MacIssac, David "Voices from the Central Blue: The Air Power Theorists. " In Makers of Modern Strategy: from Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age. Edited by Peter Paret, 624-35. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press, 1986.

Brodie, Bernard and Fawn F. From Crossbow to H-Bomb: The Evolution of the Weapons and Tactics of Warfare. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1973.

Flugel, Raymond R. United States Air Power Doctrine: A Study of the Influence of William Mitchell and Giulio Douhet at the Air Corps Tacitical School, 1921-1935. Ann Arbor, MI University Microfilms International, 1985.

Lambeth, Benjamin S. The Transformation of American Airpower. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2000.

Essay Instructions: TOPIC:

Many prominent military analysts agree that concentration (or mass) is the most important principle of war. Did the Unites States, by dividing its forces between the Southwest Pacific and Central Pacific offensives against Japan from late 1943 to late 1944, commit a strategic error by violating this principle of war?

FORMAT:

Overview
Art of the Thesis
Organization
Counter-Argument
Grammar
Style
Conclusion

Sources:

B. Assigned Readings:
1. Marston, Daniel, ed. The Pacific War Companion. Oxford, UK: Osprey Publishing, 2005. Chapters 9, 11, and 13. 92
[This collection of essays, covering the Central Pacific Campaign, amphibious operations, and the American atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, focuses on the key operations and operational leaders on both sides of the Pacific War.]

2. Smith, Douglas V. Carrier Battles: Command Decision in Harm?s Way. Annapolis: U.S. Naval Institute Press, 2006. Pages 209-250.
[Smith?s analysis continues with the Battle of the Philippine Sea.]

3. Wylie, J.C. ?Excerpt from ?Reflections on the War in the Pacific,?? Appendix A in Military Strategy: A General Theory of Power Control. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1989. Pages 117-121. (Selected Readings)
[Wylie distinguishes between ?sequential? and ?cumulative? operations and shows how both were important to the outcome of the Pacific War.]

4. Millett, Alan R. ?Assault from the Sea: The Development of Amphibious Warfare between the Wars: The American, British, and Japanese Experiences,? in Williamson Murray and Allan R. Millett, eds. Military Innovation in the Interwar Period. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Pages 50-59, 64-95.
[Millett highlights the conceptual and technical advances made in the 1920s and 1930s by the U.S. Marines in preparing to conduct amphibious operations against the Japanese.]

5. Rosen, Stephen Peter. Winning the Next War: Innovation and the Modern Military. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991. Pages 130-147. (Selected Readings)
[Rosen emphasizes the major adaptations that the U.S. submarine force made in order to be operationally effective in the Pacific War, and the strategic effects of submarine operations against Japanese shipping and war economy.]

6. Handel, Michael I. Masters of War: Classical Strategic Thought. London: Cass, 2001. Pages 53-65, 135-154, 215-254.
[Handel discusses three key strategic issues that were significant factors in the Pacific Theater - attacking the enemy?s strategy, decisive victory, and intelligence.]

Essay Instructions: Write a well-supported, well-documented argument in response essay for each topic below, each essay should be written on two pages, as a reference for all topics use a book "God's Playground" N. Davis. Please write three seperate papers.

1. The long 19 th. Century.
How did the Polish people maintain a strong sense of national identity during over a century of foreign rule? In what ways did this national consciousness change between the 18 th. Century partition of the Polish Lithuanian commonwealth and the re- emergence of Poland as a state? Write an essay assessin the shifting meanings of Polish national identity during the long 19 th. Century. You might consider which groups were excluded and which were included in this process, as well as which strategies were employed to help promote national loyalty and how effective they were.
2. The Short Interwar Sacond republic and World War II.
What motivated Polish Catholics in the town of Jedwabne to murder several hundred of their jewish neighbors during the summer of 1941? Analyze the information in “Jan Gross’s Neighbors” in the context of what you know about occupation of Poland during the war. How had the fortunes of this town shifted during the early years of war? How had situation of the Jews changed as a results? In what ways were the perpetrators encouraged to murder the Jews? What, in the end, does knowledge about the massacre at Jedwabne change about our understanding of overall Polish behavior during the war?
3. The Polish People’s Republic and its Aftermath.
Polish citizens sought to reform the communist system almost from the moment it was implemented. Each of the major uprisings in 1956, 1968, 1970/71, 1980-81 ended in compromise or failure. How effective do you think these movements were in shaping the final outcome of the collapse of communism? Consider one or two of these events and discuss the role it played in shaping Polish fortunes under communism.


There are faxes for this order.

Customer is requesting that (dmusings) completes this order.