Wars of international magnitude

1
Akua Darkwah

Wars of international magnitude
Just from $10/Page
Order Essay
World War II
Wars of international magnitude are mainly reliant on political policy which influences
military strategy and action and that was exactly the case for America during the World War II.
Hanson Baldwins essay on The Political Shortsightedness of U.S. Strategy emphasizes
the strategic policy applied by the United States in wars that it has participated in. The United
States usually assumes a direct approach with an aim of victory without a clear grand design tied
to a political policy. The United States fellow super powers Britain and Russia on the other hand
look at the bigger picture during war. The United States aims victory in war only to eradicate an
immediate threat without consideration of future implications such as the case of the World War
II. America terribly failed to relate and integrate the relation between military strategy and
political policy. This is evident in the Grand Alliance which the U.S. formed with Russia to
launch the Europe invasion but the war was unfortunately led by a mistake of unconditional
surrender. Consequently, there were casualties and a Russian domination after war. In addition
failing to act objectively by using a separation of parties that is the German people, its rulers
would have achieved an efficient war strategy and united the opposition to the cause of war to
oust the Nazi rule in Germany.
Mark Stolers essay, The political Wisdom of U.Ss Strategy depicts the policy adopted
by the U.S government during World War II as a politically motivated strategy that focused on
achieving the political goals of the nation. The U.S. negotiated its position during the World War
II among its allies in such a way that it ensured quick and decisive triumph. The aim was to
achieve control over certain key areas since the Allied forces also had distinct political interests
that they sought to defend and accomplish. Thus the military strategy was interwoven with
Comment [p1]: Wars by definition are conflicts between nations and thus international. We call some events, like the Civil War, a war but it was there was no formal declaration of war.
Comment [p2]: I am not sure what you mean by this?
Comment [p3]: This is a better statement. It is direct and to the point.
Comment [p4]: Why does he say Unconditional Surrender was a mistake?
Comment [p5]: This isnt clear.
Comment [p6]: This isnt what Stoler argued, but the other guy
Comment [p7]: vague
2
political position of the United States in the World War II to accomplish its interests. The foreign
policy that resulted in signing of the Normandy invasion of 1944 and providing aid to Russia
only came with an America agenda at the forefront which was to prevent invasion of Europe and
consequent by Russian forces whilst still blocking British proposal to adopt a slow military
action which would yield British goals of territorial expansion and imperial dominance in
Europe. Thus, it is incorrect to imply or conclude that America had no clear design in the World
War II since the inception of the second-front was Americas initiative which gained support
from the Allied forces and led to a victory on America policy and stand in a decisive and
efficient way.
The essay by Mark Stoler The Political Wisdom of U.S. Strategy is more convincing
because it is it owns its well thought out and justified premises that leads to an informative
conclusion that war is a dynamic affair and different perspectives ought to be explored in order
to establish what really drove the America agenda and course of action in the World War II. For
instance, Mark Stoler explicitly asserts that war does not happen in vacuum, but it is rather
influenced by political as well as conflicting interests of parties involved as it is the case of the
Allied forces during World War II. Being a former navy man the president is no doubt cast an
experienced individual who has both theoretical and practical experience in war and its collateral
principles and relations to politics. Hence he was no doubt serving a president and a commander-
in-chief well aware of political implication of military actions. I find this a credible analysis
since it convinces the reader that a commander-in-chief drew his conclusion from experience and
advice from chiefs of staff in all military departments as well as his officials from the department
of state. Therefore, the consequent events were a combined unfolding decision made from a
political perspective.
Comment [p8]: word choice
Comment [p9]: word choice. Did the British want slow or an indirect plan?
Comment [p10]: This isnt clear.
3
The World War II was definitely a cross-national affair which the United States had to
weigh options and promote its national agenda by campaigning for its national interests in
relation to the outcome of the war.
Grade: B- 82
When writing try to avoid putting together a lot of descriptive words connected by conjunctions.
That only muddies your meaning. It would help with being more exact with your examples.
Tell me what unconditional surrender was and why it was controversial.