Last week, we spent a good amount of time on Bismarck. Our discussion brought out many ideas and details about Bismarck that I overlooked in the reading. I was amazed that Bismarck controlled with elegance and charm. He was able to able to diplomatically convince a country to cooperate and even give up part of its sovereignty. In class, I brought up the chess board metaphor, stating that Bismarck had control over the entire game, whereas Hitler and other leaders were just aggressive pieces on the board. Bismarck’s “political and strategic realism and restraint” made him an effective leader.
Notes from the Reading
The first aspect of the reading that surprised me was the slow learning curve after World War I. I was surprised that Britain, France, and the Soviets did really take the initiative to learn from the first world war. These common theme translated into British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain’s naïve view that “it was inconceivable that anyone would court another European conflict after the slaughter of WWI.” Why were these ideas circulating at that time? Was it because everyone was tired of war from the previous world war? Even if people were tired, why was there a reluctance to learn from the missteps of World War II? …show more content…
In the text, Lord Trenchard argued, “civilian centers… vulnerable aerial bombardment would so on result in mass rioting, collapse of civil authority, and revolution.” Air strategy turned to key economic reserves, a strategy that wasn’t regarded as viable in previous wars. The text did mention that the British bombing runs had a significant impact on German morale. I was hoping the text could have explained that a little more. In what ways and to what degree did they impact morale? I’m trying to think about this in a practical
Notes from the Reading
The first aspect of the reading that surprised me was the slow learning curve after World War I. I was surprised that Britain, France, and the Soviets did really take the initiative to learn from the first world war. These common theme translated into British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain’s naïve view that “it was inconceivable that anyone would court another European conflict after the slaughter of WWI.” Why were these ideas circulating at that time? Was it because everyone was tired of war from the previous world war? Even if people were tired, why was there a reluctance to learn from the missteps of World War II? …show more content…
In the text, Lord Trenchard argued, “civilian centers… vulnerable aerial bombardment would so on result in mass rioting, collapse of civil authority, and revolution.” Air strategy turned to key economic reserves, a strategy that wasn’t regarded as viable in previous wars. The text did mention that the British bombing runs had a significant impact on German morale. I was hoping the text could have explained that a little more. In what ways and to what degree did they impact morale? I’m trying to think about this in a practical