Thursday, April 28, 2011
Monday, April 25, 2011
World War I Tech Documentary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyvARdu3jKg
An episode of “Modern Marvels” entitled “World War I Tech” is a documentary that provides its audience with actual World War I footage, animated visuals, and commentary from experts pertaining to the technological advancements created during the war. During the beginning of the documentary, the narrator established an argument that claimed that “World War I exposed the dark side of the industrial revolution” (Modern Marvels- World War I Tech). This particular idea was supported throughout the motion picture as revolutionary weapons of war such as tanks, machine guns, artillery, chemicals, and submarines are discussed. During the industrial revolution, the assembly line enabled the rapid product production. Such production combined with the increasing population paved way for many casualties. In fact, “more casualties resulted in a single battle of World War I than the casualties of both sides of the American Civil War” (Modern Marvels- World War I Tech). This specific statistic portrays the destructive natural of the new weaponry designed within this war. Therefore, it supports the argument that World War I caused much innovative advancement with the sole purpose of murder to be developed during the Industrial Revolution. One of the most innovative machinery that was developed for warfare was the airplane. Although it was only approximately ten years after its invention, the airplane proved to provide many militaristic advantages. Unlike any war prior to World War I, battles were not limited strictly to land. “Dog Fights” were quite common, and forces would compete in order to create the most advanced and efficient airplanes during the Industrial Revolution. Furthermore, “the development of the submarine was the most important technological advancement made in World War I” (Modern Marvels- World War I Tech). With the use of such aquatic machinery, German forces succeeded in the destruction of supply ships that aided their enemies. In fact, the Germans were so successful that they were almost able to completely strip their enemies of supplies. However, the circumstances of their actions cost the Germans the war in the end. As they continued to destroy supply ships, they also began sinking ships sent from the United States. After sinking the Lusitania, the United States became involved in the war for unrestricted submarine warfare encountered from Germany. As a result, the Germans lost the war due to the limitless resources provided by the United States. Such information implies the extent of the Industrial Revolution’s influence on the outcome of the war. All in all, The information provided within the documentary proved to be quite persuasive concerning the argument that is presented.
An episode of “Modern Marvels” entitled “World War I Tech” is a documentary that provides its audience with actual World War I footage, animated visuals, and commentary from experts pertaining to the technological advancements created during the war. During the beginning of the documentary, the narrator established an argument that claimed that “World War I exposed the dark side of the industrial revolution” (Modern Marvels- World War I Tech). This particular idea was supported throughout the motion picture as revolutionary weapons of war such as tanks, machine guns, artillery, chemicals, and submarines are discussed. During the industrial revolution, the assembly line enabled the rapid product production. Such production combined with the increasing population paved way for many casualties. In fact, “more casualties resulted in a single battle of World War I than the casualties of both sides of the American Civil War” (Modern Marvels- World War I Tech). This specific statistic portrays the destructive natural of the new weaponry designed within this war. Therefore, it supports the argument that World War I caused much innovative advancement with the sole purpose of murder to be developed during the Industrial Revolution. One of the most innovative machinery that was developed for warfare was the airplane. Although it was only approximately ten years after its invention, the airplane proved to provide many militaristic advantages. Unlike any war prior to World War I, battles were not limited strictly to land. “Dog Fights” were quite common, and forces would compete in order to create the most advanced and efficient airplanes during the Industrial Revolution. Furthermore, “the development of the submarine was the most important technological advancement made in World War I” (Modern Marvels- World War I Tech). With the use of such aquatic machinery, German forces succeeded in the destruction of supply ships that aided their enemies. In fact, the Germans were so successful that they were almost able to completely strip their enemies of supplies. However, the circumstances of their actions cost the Germans the war in the end. As they continued to destroy supply ships, they also began sinking ships sent from the United States. After sinking the Lusitania, the United States became involved in the war for unrestricted submarine warfare encountered from Germany. As a result, the Germans lost the war due to the limitless resources provided by the United States. Such information implies the extent of the Industrial Revolution’s influence on the outcome of the war. All in all, The information provided within the documentary proved to be quite persuasive concerning the argument that is presented.
This particular source provided information pertaining to the technological advancements created by both sides of the war. Therefore, there does not seem to be an underlying bias favoring either alliance. Instead, the video focused primarily on providing factual evidence describing the advantages that new weaponry proposed. This source is an episode of Modern Marvels, which is aired on the History Channel. In addiction, interviews concerning the subject matter were given to experts and actual eye witnesses that shared their knowledge of the war. Therefore, it should be considered a reliable source.
Machine Guns of World War I
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/mg.htm
The article, “Machine Gun”, provides a detailed history of one of the most lethal weapons that was incorporated in World War I, the machine gun. Such history describes different models of the weapon as many inventors such as Hiram Maxim, John Browning, and Isaac N. Lewis strived to perfect their creation in order for it to be more reliable and efficient on the battlefield. In addiction to presenting a historical background of the machine gun, the article also depicts the characteristics of the weapon that have revolutionized warfare. Within this particular portrayal of the weapon, an argument is created which expresses the idea that “[o]ne of the most significant revolutions in the nature of the twentieth century warfare was the rapid-firing machine gun” (Machine Gun 1). Appropriate support for this specific idea is implied as credit is given to Hiram Maxim for patenting an elementary model of a fully automatic machine gun. “In the modern automatic machine gun, the loading, firing, extraction and ejecting are all performed automatically by the gun itself, either by the recoil of its barrel, or by a small portion of the gases of explosion being allowed to escape through a minute hole in the barrel near the muzzle” (Machine Gun 2). As the characteristics of the weapon are illustrated, a reader may grasp a better understanding of the extent of the destructive power embedded within the weapon itself. As forces began to incorporate machine guns in their military tactics, a realization of the benefits that the weapon could provide was created. “It provided a high volume of lethal, accurate fire to break up an enemy assault; it has limited effects against lightly armored vehicles; and it may cause crews to button-up and operate with reduced effectiveness” (Machine Gun 2). The machine gun is far more advanced and superior in comparison to rifles used in previous wars as well as World War I. Therefore, it is quite clear that the machine gun truly was a revolutionary marvel of twentieth century warfare. As the first documented developments of the machine gun are described in the text, the motive behind the progression of this category of artillery is mentioned. One of first inventors, Gatling, possessed a strong belief that the fire power and descriptive nature of the weapon would decrease the number of troops assigned to the battlefield. With the use of a machine gun, soldiers were capable of claiming many lives in the opposing force with ease. Therefore, fewer troops were essential in battles. As a result, many were spared from exposure to disease, death, and other brutal elements of war. As the progression in the development of the gun prospered, such results became reality to forces privileged with such fatal weapons. However, another reality came into play as such weapons caused mass destruction among opposing forces that did not have such power at their disposal. Therefore, it is evident that the machine gun also revolutionized the size of a typical military platoon in comparison to previous wars. All in all, enormous amount information supports the argument presented within the text. Therefore, the argument is very persuasive and quite difficult to argue.
The article, “Machine Gun”, provides a detailed history of one of the most lethal weapons that was incorporated in World War I, the machine gun. Such history describes different models of the weapon as many inventors such as Hiram Maxim, John Browning, and Isaac N. Lewis strived to perfect their creation in order for it to be more reliable and efficient on the battlefield. In addiction to presenting a historical background of the machine gun, the article also depicts the characteristics of the weapon that have revolutionized warfare. Within this particular portrayal of the weapon, an argument is created which expresses the idea that “[o]ne of the most significant revolutions in the nature of the twentieth century warfare was the rapid-firing machine gun” (Machine Gun 1). Appropriate support for this specific idea is implied as credit is given to Hiram Maxim for patenting an elementary model of a fully automatic machine gun. “In the modern automatic machine gun, the loading, firing, extraction and ejecting are all performed automatically by the gun itself, either by the recoil of its barrel, or by a small portion of the gases of explosion being allowed to escape through a minute hole in the barrel near the muzzle” (Machine Gun 2). As the characteristics of the weapon are illustrated, a reader may grasp a better understanding of the extent of the destructive power embedded within the weapon itself. As forces began to incorporate machine guns in their military tactics, a realization of the benefits that the weapon could provide was created. “It provided a high volume of lethal, accurate fire to break up an enemy assault; it has limited effects against lightly armored vehicles; and it may cause crews to button-up and operate with reduced effectiveness” (Machine Gun 2). The machine gun is far more advanced and superior in comparison to rifles used in previous wars as well as World War I. Therefore, it is quite clear that the machine gun truly was a revolutionary marvel of twentieth century warfare. As the first documented developments of the machine gun are described in the text, the motive behind the progression of this category of artillery is mentioned. One of first inventors, Gatling, possessed a strong belief that the fire power and descriptive nature of the weapon would decrease the number of troops assigned to the battlefield. With the use of a machine gun, soldiers were capable of claiming many lives in the opposing force with ease. Therefore, fewer troops were essential in battles. As a result, many were spared from exposure to disease, death, and other brutal elements of war. As the progression in the development of the gun prospered, such results became reality to forces privileged with such fatal weapons. However, another reality came into play as such weapons caused mass destruction among opposing forces that did not have such power at their disposal. Therefore, it is evident that the machine gun also revolutionized the size of a typical military platoon in comparison to previous wars. All in all, enormous amount information supports the argument presented within the text. Therefore, the argument is very persuasive and quite difficult to argue.
It appears as though the author does not establish personally ideas that would support a particular force that was engaged in World War I. Instead, the author simply focuses on the historical content that described the origin of the machine gun as well as a description of its characteristics. Therefore, the author did not possess a bias toward either alliance in the war. As a result, the author may be considered as an individual that takes both sides of an argument into consideration. Therefore, a fair perspective relating to the topic of effects of the machine gun in World War I is presented. As a reader questions the credibility of this particular source, one may consider the fact that the text was written by an unidentified author. However, the source appears to be quite credible due to the fact that it is part of GlobalSecurity.org, which is a public policy organization which covers subjects such as fields of defense, weapons of mass destruction, homeland security, and intelligence. Additionally, the website seeks information from experts on the subject matter. Therefore, this source is without a doubt reliable.
Incorporating Tanks Into Warfare
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/tank-history1.htm
“History of the Tank” is an article that portrays the development and methods of use associated with tanks of World War I. As the development of the armored vehicle of war is described, the author reveals an argument in which he implies that “[c]ompared to other weaponry, the tank was the most rapidly developed weapon system in the history of warfare” (History of the Tank 1). In fact, the model of a tank that was influenced by an English officer, Ernest D. Swinton, as he proposed its creation to the British Committee of Imperial Defense after considering incorporating armor to a simple caterpillar tractor. Although the committee was skeptical of the benefits that such a vehicle could provide in warfare, Winston S. Churchill took great interest in its development. With Churchill’s involvement, the tank prospered from being a simple idea to becoming a beneficial weapon incorporated in military operations executed commonly by the Allies forces in as little as three years. The idea that motivated such quick results involved the desire to overcome the obstacles of trench warfare. The intentional use of the tank was to transport artillery and other supplies to troops across No Man’s Land with greater ease and efficiency. This particular information supports the argument that the tank was the most quickly developed weapon of war throughout history by describing factors that encouraged such rapid development. As a result of such development, trenches no longer posed a threat in the transport of essential needs to troops, which revolutionized warfare. Further support becomes evident as the author describes “[s]mall, local attacks, beginning at Flers on the Somme on 15 September 1916, dissipated the initial surprise of the tank” by British forces (History of the Tank 1). This event occurred approximately a year after Churchill began experimentation on the vehicle. Therefore, the extent of the accelerated pace that the tank was developed is portrayed. Additionally, German forces became interested in tanks as they faced defeat in the Battle of Cambrai, “Black Day”, as a result of the benefits provided by tanks to their opposing force, Britain. The Germans strived to build highly advanced tank models. However, they had a drastic shortage on materials. All in all, the details provided with the text provide strong evidence pertaining to the fact that tanks were the most rapidly developed article of war. As a result, the argument is persuasive.
“History of the Tank” is an article that portrays the development and methods of use associated with tanks of World War I. As the development of the armored vehicle of war is described, the author reveals an argument in which he implies that “[c]ompared to other weaponry, the tank was the most rapidly developed weapon system in the history of warfare” (History of the Tank 1). In fact, the model of a tank that was influenced by an English officer, Ernest D. Swinton, as he proposed its creation to the British Committee of Imperial Defense after considering incorporating armor to a simple caterpillar tractor. Although the committee was skeptical of the benefits that such a vehicle could provide in warfare, Winston S. Churchill took great interest in its development. With Churchill’s involvement, the tank prospered from being a simple idea to becoming a beneficial weapon incorporated in military operations executed commonly by the Allies forces in as little as three years. The idea that motivated such quick results involved the desire to overcome the obstacles of trench warfare. The intentional use of the tank was to transport artillery and other supplies to troops across No Man’s Land with greater ease and efficiency. This particular information supports the argument that the tank was the most quickly developed weapon of war throughout history by describing factors that encouraged such rapid development. As a result of such development, trenches no longer posed a threat in the transport of essential needs to troops, which revolutionized warfare. Further support becomes evident as the author describes “[s]mall, local attacks, beginning at Flers on the Somme on 15 September 1916, dissipated the initial surprise of the tank” by British forces (History of the Tank 1). This event occurred approximately a year after Churchill began experimentation on the vehicle. Therefore, the extent of the accelerated pace that the tank was developed is portrayed. Additionally, German forces became interested in tanks as they faced defeat in the Battle of Cambrai, “Black Day”, as a result of the benefits provided by tanks to their opposing force, Britain. The Germans strived to build highly advanced tank models. However, they had a drastic shortage on materials. All in all, the details provided with the text provide strong evidence pertaining to the fact that tanks were the most rapidly developed article of war. As a result, the argument is persuasive.
The unidentified author of this article seems to strictly focus on the origin and purpose of tanks in World War I. There are no signs that would propose the idea that he of she favors either alliance that participated in the war. Therefore, a bias does not seem to be present in the text. The author seems to be interested in facts and evidence rather than formulating an opinion that supports either force. As the credibility of this source is analyzed, one may consider the fact that the identity of the author is not mentioned. However, the source appears to be quite credible due to the fact that it is part of GlobalSecurity.org, which is a public policy organization which covers subjects such as fields of defense, weapons of mass destruction, homeland security, and intelligence. Additionally, the website seeks information from experts on the subject matter.
Monday, April 4, 2011
German Naval Operatrions of World War I
http://www.gwpda.org/naval/igncompf.htm
“German Use of Composite Naval Force Operations in World War One” by Mike Edinger describes the naval tactics that Germany exercised during World War I battles in order to compete with Britain’s highly advanced navy. Edigar appears to argue the point that Germany developed modernized combat tactics as well as innovative naval technology in order to isolate and engage the British Grant Fleet into warfare. This procedure was considered to be the only option that would bring success to German powers. Although the author emphasizes on Germany’s naval force, he also mentions certain aspects of the British naval force that were considered far more superior. Therefore, it is quite clear that Edinger does not express a preference towards either Axis or Allies powers. Instead, the sole purpose of this particular article is to strictly focus on the advances made within the German Military. Without a bias toward Germany, the author successfully supports his argument by providing specific details concerning modernized technological advancements as well as naval strategies that proved to benefit Germany during the war. For instance, Germany’s inferiority during the start of the war is described as they relied on scouting cruisers to locate and combat opposing fleets. After Germany realized that these scouting cruisers were not effective enough, the Zeppelin airship was developed. This specific airship was more cost efficient and further effective against the dangers posed by mines and submarines. By describing the procedure in which Germany created such improvements within its military, evidence supporting the idea that Germany developed technological advances in order to compete with Britain’s military. Furthermore, “the German navy actively pursue[d] the development of seaplane tenders, the torpedo plane, and the aerial mine laying” in order to create more superiority for seaplanes. Additionally, the author explains the methods that Germany practiced in order to mislead spying enemies through the use of deception plans. In such plans, Germany would provide opposing forces with fraudulent information pertaining to their own personal military operations. By doing so, Germany possessed the advantage of spontaneous attacks. This information expresses the advances that Germany embedded within its military strategy in order to isolate and attack British forces, which was considered to be the only effective method of overthrowing them. Therefore, it supports the author’s argument. By providing facts concerning German innovations in weaponry and military tactics, the author effectively persuades his audience that his argument proves to hold true.
As mentioned before, the author does not hold a bias in favor of either side of World War I. The author seems to stray from forming a bias as he describes Britain’s superiority in naval military power while discussing German naval operations and technological progress. Instead, he supplies unprejudiced historical facts. Therefore, it is implied that the author desires to strictly provide facts instead of a perspective that supports a specific alliance in the war. Additionally, this source contains information from professors and other historical experts as well as numerous textbooks. Therefore, the source appears to be quite reliable.
Modern Weaponary of World War I
https://wikis.nyu.edu/ek6/modernamerica/index.php/Industry/MilitaryTechnologyAndItsDomesticityDuringWorldWarI
“Military Technology and Its Domesticity During World War I” contains elaborate historical and technological details pertaining to the technological advances that have made the most dramatic impact in World War I. It is quite clear the author, Igor Shandler, establishes an argument expressing the idea that both Axis and Allies powers strived to create technological advances that would benefit them in warfare. Thus, the pressure to surpass the opposing power’s technological progress was tremendous. Such competition, therefore, sparked many technological innovations to be developed. By providing information concerning dreadnoughts, the Curtiss pusher biplane, the machine gun, and chemicals, it seems as though the author effectively provides evidence that supports his argument. By stressing the constant desire to obtain superiority through technological means that both sides possessed, the author explains how eager they were to demonstrate the power of modern inventions in the war. At first, benefits that the dreadnoughts offered the British navy are described. By evaluating the aspects of dreadnoughts that made them so effective, the author supports his argument. Such support includes the idea that “the ship was created on British territory to serve the purpose of intimidating the enemies in seeing how Great Britain was very sophisticated technologically and could deter any enemy through its superior power” (Military Technology and Its Domesticity During World War I 2). As the American Curtiss pusher biplane is mentioned, the author writes, “they were statements of a society that had new ideas and was willing to incorporate them” (Military Technology and Its Domesticity During World War I 3). Such planes revolutionized methods of conducting warfare. Battles were no longer fought strictly on land. Therefore, the effect of the need to become technologically advanced is demonstrated properly by the author. By arguing that the machine gun is a symbol of a growing industrial revolution, the author further supports his argument. Last but not least, the author describes how a German chemist, Fritz Haber, developed chlorine gas because Germans hoped that it would bring an end to the tedious war. This idea ultimately depicts the drive for victory that both powers possessed. All in all, the enormous amount of support that is provided pertaining to the argument seems to be quite persuasive and flawless.
It seems as though the author remains neutral between both the Allies and Axis powers. In fact, there does not appear to be an underlying bias favoring either power that was involved in World War I. The strengths of both sides and emphasized equally. Taking this into consideration, the author seems to be an individual who considers both sides of an argument. By refusing to include a personal bias in his or her work, a fair perspective concerning historical information is granted to readers. When questioning the source’s reliability, one might infer that this source possesses credibility. Throughout the information provided, citations from multiple professors, experts, and textbooks are included. Additionally, Igor Shandler is himself a professor at the University of New York who has designed this particular source as part of his curriculum. Therefore, the information is without a doubt legitimate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)