Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Instructions
1. Choose a question to which you want to respond. Each question is attached as a post. Your post of 250-300 words goes as a "comment" to that post.
2. For your comment of 100-150 words, in the title put your name and to which student's post you are responding. For example, "Valerie commenting on Zlatka's Post". Put it in the section labeled "Comments to Question #__ ". Do NOT put your comments in the same section where you put your original posts.
ALSO... do NOT go back to previous questions. I will no longer look at those.
2. For your comment of 100-150 words, in the title put your name and to which student's post you are responding. For example, "Valerie commenting on Zlatka's Post". Put it in the section labeled "Comments to Question #__ ". Do NOT put your comments in the same section where you put your original posts.
ALSO... do NOT go back to previous questions. I will no longer look at those.
Grading Periods
6th six weeks...last set!
Choose ONE question (#13-15) to answer in a 250-300 work post. Due Friday May 24.
Choose ONE question (#13-15) to answer in a 250-300 work post. Due Friday May 24.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSymone commenting on Brittany's post:
ReplyDeleteI do agree that Germany was the most prepared to fight a ‘total war’, but I also question Germany. Though Germany was equipped to fight a ‘total war’, when the British created the tank this caused a huge problem for Germany. The reason being, at this point in time Germany did not have the intellectual leaders or designs to build a tank, meaning that they did not have tanks and did not have so until after WW1 (1930’s). So thus this leads me to my question, Does this mean that since Germany was not prepared to or could not defend itself against the tanks that they were not fully prepared?’ If we went into depth, the definition of being prepared is to be properly expectant or equipped; this would mean that Germany itself was not prepared for ‘total war’, which would both contradict and rule out both your statement and my first sentence of this paragraph, and answer my question with a ‘Yes’. Correct?
Symone Magee - 155
In response to Eli’s comment, which stated that Germany was prepared for total war, I will argue that Germany was not prepared for “total war”. Although she had a top of the line military and growing economy so powerful that it threatened Britain’, a long time economic leader, she was not prepared on many levels. First, she was not prepared to work with her allies (mainly Austria) as were France and Britain who became united on more than just military issues during the war. Secondly, her Navy, although it had made considerable progress the years leading to WWI, was no match to Britain’s experienced Navy which largely isolated her from critical world markets. Finally, Germany’s strong economy proved not strong enough to withstand both a two-front war and the basic demands of the German people.
ReplyDeleteword count: 135
In response to Soumya's comment:
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree with your thoughts and views on how well equipped Germany was during World War I, I can’t help but question your ideas on how propaganda had encouraged nationalism within the country. Propaganda is a useful tool for countries to utilize during states of war, but the way they manipulate the media can either be beneficial or detrimental to the country. In Germany’s case, it was detrimental. By preventing the media from releasing their losses out in the battle field, it ruined the potential chance for the German people to raise their nationalist feelings and morale to fight harder in the war. If this had happened, it was most likely that Germany could have won as the German people would come together to fight and defeat the Allied Forces with all their might as they wouldn’t want to damage the pride of their country.
Word count: 146
Dorian Granizo commenting Alfredo Almazan's post:
ReplyDeleteIt is entirely true that no country was entirely prepared to engage in total war and that is because no country believed that WWI would be what it was. It was just assumed that after a few months or years the war would fizzle out, but that simply didn't happen. The war kept just going and no nation had accounted for such a lengthy conflict. It is also true that even though not a single nation was entirely prepared for the magnitude of the Great War the country that had the most elements ready for war was Germany. Before war broke out Germany had already begun mass producing weapons, supplies, and even collecting soldiers and all to a degree unrivaled by any other nation. This allowed them to be the most economically and socially adaptive during the war and this indicates that they were the most prepared for total war.
(Word count- 150)
Sandra Reyes commenting on Elisha Diaz’s post:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Germany was the most prepared to fight in WWI as a total war but not Great Britain. Germany had a big and powerful army which was helped due to their enthusiasm and propaganda. Britain may have had a good use of propaganda but not too well to form a social barrier for people to voluntarily join the army. Great Britain was able to increase its number of soldiers to reach 2.9 million men enrolled in the army. They were also successful by utilizing their civilian life by taking much of the women at home into factories to ensure military supplies. The government also pushed for the use of many weapons and new inventions such as the poisoned gas. Not to mention their powerful navy. All these factors can help one see that Germany did all they could to ensure their victory and can be seen to be most successful.
Word Count: 154
Tatyana Guy commenting on Juliane Berger's blog post:
ReplyDeleteI somewhat agree with you that Germany was the most materially prepared to fight World War I as a “total war.” They had a lot of weapons and were more technologically advanced than other countries. They did have the second largest navy right after Great Britain, and had a lot of soldiers in the army. If they were so “prepared,” why did they lose the war? I believe that this is because they were not prepared in the sense that they did not choose their allies wisely, and did not have good communication between their troops and allies. They could be seen as the most prepared country had it not been for their poor choice of allies. Another reason for their lack of success is their failure of tactics. They underestimated their opponents. In conclusion, they were more prepared as a country, but their allies were not as united and prepared as them, dragging Germany down with them.
Word Count: 150
Reina Wong in reply to Eli's post:
ReplyDeleteWhile I do agree that Britain was prepared for "total war", I do not believe that Germany was prepared. Britain, unlike Germany, had a more awesome economy, a more awesome navy, and many supporters from colonies like Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. Britain, unlike Germany, also had supportive and useful allies -- France, Russia, and the United States—that did not ditch her last minute (Italy with Germany). The main event to highlight that Britain was prepared for "total war" instead of Germany is that Britain followed the rules of "total war" with its naval blockade, successfully worsening their economy and cutting off their supplies. While Germany had their submarines to limit British imports, their plan to cut off Britain backfired when they dragged the United States into the war with "unlimited submarine warfare".
Word count: 134
David Kassir commenting on Eli Diaz’s post
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Germany was a country that was adequately prepared for Total War, but where I disagree with you is that you say Great Britain was just as equally prepared. While Britain may have had a strong economy, there were a number of factors about Germany that I felt made them more prepared for Total War. One of the more notable of these factors was the conscription system they had in place, which allowed Germany to utilize their fighting power and spread them out on both the eastern and western fronts. Germany also extensively employed women, which is something that Britain couldn’t necessarily do since it was so much farther from the fighting in mainland Europe. Germany had employed nearly 700,000 women to aid in the war effort, making it more appropriate than Britain for fighting a total war.
Word Count: 149
Alejandra Perez in responding to Juliane's post:
ReplyDeleteDue to its technological advances and military strength, Germany was perceived to be prepared for conflict such as war. Despite your assertion, I believe Britain was prepared for "Total War" due to its strategic ability to hinder Germany.
Britain had a strong economy and empire. It was supported by both its colonies which provided men and goods. Considering that it is an island-country, Britain’s naval forces were the largest and most powerful in the world. The naval forces were heavily used in the war—especially during the time the British blockaded German ports.
By implementing this strategy, it hindered Germany’s economy, ability to trade, import food and goods, and export weapons to troops. This was used by the British in order to put pressure on the German government and lower citizen motivation. The success was one of the very few things that emphasized on Britain’s readiness for total war.
Word count: 149
THIS BELONGS TO JEMILY NOT ME, DESPITE THE FACT I AM POSTING IT.
ReplyDeleteSHE IS CURRENTLY IN A PLACE THAT DOES NOT PROVIDE GOOD HOTEL WIFI SO SHE SENT IT TO ME.
J. Emily responding to DanThi:
While I agree with your overall point – that Germany was the most prepared of all the great powers to fight in a “total war,” I don’t agree with your statement that Germany had a massive army.
Germany certainly did not have a massive army, in comparison to the other world powers. Of all the great powers, Germany’s army was the best equipped, best trained, and best organized – but there were many other powers that had greater armies. For example, Russia; Russia, of course had the advantage over all the countries of sheer numbers of manpower. Russia certainly did not have nearly as well organized, trained, or provisioned an army as Germany – but they had a much larger army.
Word count: 118
Bilal responding to Alfredo Almazan:
ReplyDeleteI completely agree, there was no true preparedness for a long war seen in any country and Germany was the only capable country that could be considered slightly prepared. They had the Schlieffen Plan in order to prevent a two front war and the fact that they had millions of men in the army would help speed up their plan and prevent the two front war that they clearly dreaded. With nationalistic feelings caused by all the propaganda that was fed to the people by the government Germany could continue to have people participating in war efforts whether it was through fighting in the army or taking up extra work like women getting employed. With all the people actively participating in the war Germany was inarguably most prepared for the long war.
Word Count: 132
Jared commenting on Brittany's post:
ReplyDeleteI disagree that Germany was the most prepared to go to war, and instead that it was Great Britain. When it originally attacked France in 1914, it planned to keep the war small scale and not involve Great Britain in the struggle. Britain proved itself as more ready to go to war by using its alliance to France in order to join in. Britain was also the best equipped for the style of war it was suited to, holding the largest number of dreadnoughts worldwide just before the war broke out. Furthermore, Germany was not prepared nor did it want to fight a two front war with the inclusion of Russia. As a whole, Germany was prepared for war, but not the most prepared for the kind of warfare WWI entailed.
Word Count: 131