The story

Review: Volume 1 - Military History

Review: Volume 1 - Military History


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

This book presents as many aspects as possible of warfare during the period of the crusades within all the cultures most directly involved. To a large extent the current interest in the Crusades reflects the perceived threat of a so-called 'clash of civilisations'. While warnings of such a supposed clash in our own times are based upon a misunderstanding of the natures of both 'Western' and 'Islamic' civilisations, some commentators have looked to the medieval Crusades as an earlier example of such a clash. In reality they were no such thing. Instead the Crusades resulted from a remarkable variety of political, economic, cultural and religious factors. The Crusades, even excluding the Northern or Baltic Crusades, also involved an extraordinary array of states, ruling dynasties, ethnic or linguistic groups and the fighting forces associated with these disparate participants. This volume focuses on Western Europe and the Byzantium Crusades. Latin or Catholic Europe certainly had an 'eastern front'. Medieval Europeans, and certainly the knightly class which came to bear the brunt of Crusading warfare, would have seen all these fronts as part of Latin Christendom's struggle against outsiders. The latter ranged from infidels to schismatics, to pagans and other 'enemies of God'. Excluding Crusading or Christian frontier warfare north of the Carpathian Mountains did not reflect any real military or even political factors on the Latin side of the 'front'. It is based upon which enemies were to be included and which excluded. This study looks at Christian and in a few cases "pagan" armies whose actions or mere existence in sub-Saharan Africa and Central Asia, had a bearing upon military, political and economic relations between Christendom and Islam within the Mediterranean world.

Rupert Matthews tells the story of the most dramatic military campaign of the medieval world, a thrilling tale of action, adventure, mystery and much more. Before the Crecy campaign began, France was recognised to have the greatest, most powerful and most modern army in all Christendom. England was thought of as a prosperous but relatively backward kingdom lying somewhere in the sea off the European coast. But six hours of bloodshed, slaughter and heroism beyond imagining changed all that. The pride of France was humbled, her army destroyed and her king a wounded fugitive fleeing for his life through a foggy night. This book explains to the general reader the reality of warfare in the year 1346. It seeks to recreate in our minds the tactics used in the Crecy Campaign and to put them into the context of the time. It shows what the weapons were like and how they were used in action. It describes the tactics of the different military units involved and how these would have impacted on each other in battle. Crucially, it takes the reader inside the minds of the commanders to explain what they did, why they did it and what they hoped to achieve. This is the second in Spellmount's new series, "Campaign in Context".

One of the greatest medieval warriors Harald Sigurdsson, nicknamed Hardrada (Harold the Ruthless or hard ruler) fell in battle in an attempt to snatch the crown of England. The spectacular and heroic career which ended at Stamford Bridge in Yorkshire on 25 September 1066 had taken Harald from Norway to Russia and Constantinople and saw him gain a kingdom by force and determination rather than right or inheritance. He was one of the most feared rulers in Europe and was first and foremost a professional soldier, who acquired great wealth by plunder and showed no mercy to those he conquered. "Harald Hardrada: The Warrior's Way" reconstructs a military career spanning three and a half decades and involving encounters with an extraordinary range of allies and enemies in sea-fights and land battles, sieges and viking raids across a variety of theatres of war. John Marsden's superbly researched and powerfully written account takes us from the lands of the Norsemen to Byzantium and the Crusades and makes clear how England moved decisively from three hundred years of exposure to the Scandinavian orbit to a stronger identification with continental Europe following the Norman invasion.

Drawing on a wealth of new evidence from all sides, Triumph Forsaken overturns most of the historical orthodoxy on the Vietnam War. Through the analysis of international perceptions and power, it shows that South Vietnam was a vital interest of the United States. The book provides many new insights into the overthrow of Ngo Dinh Diem in 1963 and demonstrates that the coup negated the South Vietnamese government's tremendous, and hitherto unappreciated, military and political gains between 1954 and 1963. After Diem's assassination, President Lyndon Johnson had at his disposal several aggressive policy options that could have enabled South Vietnam to continue the war without a massive US troop infusion, but he ruled out these options because of faulty assumptions and inadequate intelligence, making such an infusion the only means of saving the country.


The Czechoslovak Review/Volume 1/A Little Bit of History

The campaign for Bohemian independence is now in its third year and the end is not yet in sight. But signs multiply, like the entrance of the United States into the war and the victorious offensive in the West, which indicate that Germany and its partners will soon be defeated and the unwilling subjects of the Hapsburgs liberated. And so it is not perhaps out of place to begin to gather material from which will be constructed some day the story of the movement which resulted in the establishment of the Bohemian Republic.

In the “ Československá Samostatnost ” (Bohemian Slovak Independence), published by the Bohemian National Council in Paris, under date of March 10, there is a feuilleton written by Dr. Leo Sychrava, editor of the paper, which will be of interest to all friends of Bohemia. It is given here in English version:

A few days ago there occurred in Geneva the death of the managing editor of the “ Journal de Geneve ,” Albert Bonnard, a great journalist and publicist, strong enemy of Germany and Austria, devoted friend of France and a valued patron of the cause of Bohemia.

We would be ungrateful if we did not pay a tribute to his memory and omitted to record his name which ought to be mentioned always in connection with the very beginnings of our foreign political work during this war. Albert Bonnard it was who first gave space in his journal to a lengthy and truthful report of the situation in Bohemia, the attitude of the Bohemian people toward the war, the sentiments of the Bohemian soldiers, their riots, the terrorism of the Austrian government, the deep, irreconcilable hate of our people toward Vienna, their sympathies for Russia and the Allies and their longing for independence.

In the latter part of October, 1914, the Journal de Geneve published two long articles under the title “ Le Recit d’un Tcheque ” (The Story of a Bohemian), filled with carefully collected facts and details of the events in Prague at the outbreak of the war, when soldiers went to the front and when news came of the first Russian victories. As Albert Bonnard himself stated, it was the first reliable report that came out of Bohemia since the war, for other reports came only from the imperial royal correspondence bureau and expatiated on the enthusiasm of everybody for war and loyalty of all Austrian nations toward the empire and the dynasty.

The story from the Journal de Geneve was copied by French and English papers and new opinions began to be entertained of the situation in the Austro-Hungarian monarchy which before the war had many friends in the West and even when war broke out, in the first months of battles, was looked upon as a minor enemy, a less guilty accomplice, one entitled to consideration from the Allies.

Since that time Albert Bonnard remained our friend and associate. He always gave space to news from Bohemia, wrote himself leading articles dealing with our struggle and our hopes, and aroused a great deal of attention, not merely in the Allied countries and Switzerland, but even in Germany. Of course the Austrian government took hand in this at once. The very first report from Prague called out a long dementi from the Austrian legation which aimed to prove that Bohemian soldiers were fighting bravely for Austria. The minister naturally was unable to contradict a first hand account of a witness who described what happened at the Prague depots, when Bohemian regiments were departing, but he copied from the army journal names of soldiers attached to regiments from Bohemian districts who received decorations for bravery.

That, of course, was no proof that the Prague account was incorrect. The denial made a poor impression and gave occasion to much laughter. Albert Bonnard merely added a paragraph that the official Austrian communication did not affect the story of the Bohemian correspondent. The Austrian legation put Bonnard on its blacklist and watched minutely the neutrality of the Geneva publication which had become a thorn in its eye. As the Central Powers enjoyed great influence with the Swiss Federal Government and particularly with the all-powerful general staff which was in charge of political censoring, the enmity of Herr Gagern affected even this important Geneva paper. In Bern, Bonnard was classified as a dangerous red radical who supported revolutionary propaganda ​ against Austria. When Austrian authorities succeeded in driving out of Switzerland the editor of the Bohemian Slovak Independence, Albert Bonnard said that they would drive him out too, if they could.

Even the Bern general staff could not touch Bonnard, though his own associates counselled greater circumspection and stricter neutrality. Bonnard upheld his attitude to the day of his death. He was one of those who looked upon neutrality between crime and right as absurdity and as participation in crime. He was not a man of hate or an enemy of the German nation. Though brought up on French civilization, he was a Swiss. But not one of those whose narrow horizon corresponds to the narrow boundaries of the Helvetian republic and who are interested solely in their own small country. To Bonnard, the peaceful Swiss oasis amid the universal war tumult was a watch tower from which he studied the death struggle raging on all sides. He had a truly European standpoint, and from it he viewed the Slav and Bohemian question. * ⁠ * ⁠ * ⁠ * ⁠ *

I shall never forget the day, when I knocked for the first time upon the door of his cozy study. He received me in a friendly way and told me to sit down in a wide armchair, while he looked me over with a searching look. I told him about the situation in Bohemia, how I got out and what plans I had. “Interesting, very interesting,” he repeated. “Write it out and we will publish it. Now, not too much politics: we want facts. We really know nothing of Austria, and less of Bohemia.” Bonnard, of course, knew of Bohemia, of our parliamentary struggles, of Kramář and Masaryk. But what happened in Bohemia since mobilization was all news to him. I wrote out my story and it was accepted.

To an exiled journalist it was a great event and wonderful encouragement. Up to that time all efforts to get the simplest facts published had been vain. Confidence was lacking and so was interest. Some would not believe, others would give the excuse that the reports were too extravagant and colored. It was a difficult beginning, no personal connections, no preparations, no appreciation of the seriousness of our problem and the tragedy of our struggle, while Austria still seemed to be a mighty country with a future.

Today, when we have come so much nearer to our goal, we have confidence. We know that we shall get, if not all, at least far more than we looked for in the days of uncertainty. Then we shall gather recollections and say much that cannot be said today. The story of our movement will be interesting and instructive. Several men will have a place in it whom free Bohemia will delight to honor. Albert Bonnard will be among them.

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1926.

The author died in 1958, so this work is also in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 60 years or less. This work may also be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.


Parts of a historiographic essay

You will begin a historiographic essay with a thesis that presents the issue or event at stake, then introduces your sources and articulates, in brief, their authors' perspectives and their main points of (dis)agreement. In the main body of your paper you will elaborate upon and develop this latter point, pulling out specific points of (dis)agreement, juxtaposing quotes (and/or paraphrasing arguments) and subjecting them to analysis as you go along. As you do so, ask (and answer) why you think the authors of your various sources disagree. Is their disagreement a product of personal or professional rivalry, ideological incompatibility, national affiliation? These questions go to the heart of historiography. In your conclusion, finally, you will briefly summarize your findings and, more importantly, assess the credibility of your various sources, and specify which one(s) you find to be most compelling, and why. In final conclusion you might articulate in brief the insights you have gained into the event or issue at stake, the sources you have used, and the nature of history itself.


Israel Defense Forces

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

Israel Defense Forces (IDF), armed forces of Israel, comprising the Israeli army, navy, and air force.

The IDF was established on May 31, 1948, just two weeks after Israel’s declaration of independence. Since its creation, its guiding principles have been shaped by the country’s need to defend itself from its numerically superior neighbours. The primary element of this doctrine is the belief that Israel cannot afford to lose a single war. IDF planners believe that this goal can be attained only through a defensive strategy that utilizes the rapid mobilization of overwhelming force to take the war to the enemy. Becasuse the Israeli army has a relatively small active-duty component—estimates in the early 21st century placed it at some 125,000 troops, of whom roughly two-thirds were conscripts—this mission could be achieved only through the maintenance of a well-trained reserve force and active intelligence gathering. These human assets were supplemented with robust early warning systems, one of the world’s most advanced theatre missile defense networks, and a mechanized force that included some 2,500 main battle tanks and more than 5,000 armoured personnel carriers.

Due to the IDF’s reliance on reserve units to provide the overwhelming majority of its infantry strength, it could more accurately be categorized as a citizen militia supplemented by a small corps of career officers and active-duty conscripts. Military service is compulsory for Jews and Druze, both men and women, and for Circassian men. Conscription deferments are available to students, and exemptions from service are granted to married women, women with children, and men who are undertaking religious studies. The period of active-duty conscription is 32 months for men and 24 months for women this is followed by a decades-long period of compulsory reserve duty (to age 50 for women and age 55 for men).

Among the specialized infantry units within the IDF are the Nahal Brigade, a unit established by David Ben-Gurion which combines military and agricultural training the Kfir Brigade, a unit specializing in urban combat and counterterrorism the Combat Engineering Corps and the Paratroopers. The commander of the IDF is the chief of general staff, a position subject to civilian oversight by the minister of defense. The chiefs of the air force and navy report to the chief of staff, as do regional commanders and the heads of various defense directorates. One such directorate is the Intelligence Corps, which, along with Mossad (external operations) and Shin Bet (internal operations), forms the three pillars of Israel’s intelligence and counterintelligence establishment.


Manuscript Submissions

Please review the submission and style guidelines carefully before submitting.

Please submit articles, reviews, and other contributions as Microsoft Word or Rich Text Format (rtf) files through the online submissions system at https://ojs3.berghahnjournals.com/index.php/isr/login.

Authors must register with the journal on the submission website prior to submitting, or, if already registered, they can simply log in. On registering as an Author, authors have the option of also registering as a Reviewer (to be called upon to undertake peer reviews of other submissions). The main text of the files should be uploaded in an anonymized file without any details that reveal the identity of the author(s). To anonymize the text, authors should select &ldquoproperties&rdquo from the drop-down File menu, then click on the Summary tab and remove the author&rsquos name.

All submissions are subject to a rigorous double blind peer review process and submission is no guarantee of publication. We encourage authors to ensure their submissions are ready for peer review. To this end, please:

· Carefully edit your submission

· Ensure you have formatted the piece correctly, following the submission and style guide

· Respect the relevant word lengths, as stated in the submission and style guide. Submissions that are over length may be rejected

· Anonymize your submission and submit a cover sheet with your bio and an abstract in a separate file

· The editors reserve the right to reject submissions that are not suitable for publication in the journal.

Manuscripts accepted for publication that do not conform to the ISR style guide will be returned to the author for amendment.

Have other questions? Please refer to the Berghahn Info for Authors page for general information and guidelines including topics such as article usage and permissions for Berghahn journal article authors.


How memes got weaponized: A short history

Memes come off as a joke, but some people are starting to see them as the serious threat they are.

In October 2016, a friend of mine learned that one of his wedding photos had made its way into a post on a right-wing message board. The picture had been doctored to look like an ad for Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and appeared to endorse the idea of drafting women into the military. A mutual friend of ours found the image first and sent him a message: “Ummm, I saw this on Reddit, did you make this?”

This was the first my friend had heard of it. He hadn’t agreed to the use of his image, which was apparently taken from his online wedding album. But he also felt there was nothing he could do to stop it.

This story was part of our November 2019 issue

So rather than poke the trolls by complaining, he ignored it and went on with his life. Most of his friends had a laugh at the fake ad, but I saw a huge problem. As a researcher of media manipulation and disinformation, I understood right away that my friend had become cannon fodder in a “meme war”—the use of slogans, images, and video on social media for political purposes, often employing disinformation and half-truths.

While today we tend to think of memes as funny images online, Richard Dawkins coined the term back in 1976 in his book The Selfish Gene, where he described how culture is transmitted through generations. In his definition, memes are “units of culture” spread through the diffusion of ideas. Memes are particularly salient online because the internet crystallizes them as artifacts of communication and accelerates their distribution through subcultures.

Importantly, as memes are shared they shed the context of their creation, along with their authorship. Unmoored from the trappings of an author’s reputation or intention, they become the collective property of the culture. As such, memes take on a life of their own, and no one has to answer for transgressive or hateful ideas.

And while a lot of people think of memes as harmless entertainment—funny, snarky comments on current events—we’re far beyond that now. Meme wars are a consistent feature of our politics, and they’re not just being used by internet trolls or some bored kids in the basement, but by governments, political candidates, and activists across the globe. Russia used memes and other social-media tricks to influence the US election in 2016, using a troll farm known as the Internet Research Agency to seed pro-Trump and anti-Clinton content across various online platforms. Both sides in territorial conflicts like those between Hong Kong and China, Gaza and Israel, and India and Pakistan are using memes and viral propaganda to sway both local and international sentiment.

In 2007, for example, as he was campaigning for president, John McCain jokingly started to sing “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran” to the tune of the Beach Boys’ popular song “Barbara Ann.” McCain, an Iran hawk, was talking up a possible war using the well-worn tactic of humor and familiarity: easy to dismiss as a joke, yet serving as a scary reminder of US military power. But it became a political liability for him. The slogan was picked up by civilian meme-makers, who spread and adapted it until it went viral. His opponent, Barack Obama, in essence got unpaid support from people who were better at creating persuasive content than his own campaign staff.

The viral success of memes has led governments to try imitating the genre in their propaganda. These campaigns are often aimed at the young, like the US Army’s social-media-focused “Warriors Wanted” program, or the British Army campaign that borrows the visual language of century-old recruiting posters to make fun of millennial stereotypes. These drew ridicule when they were launched earlier this year, but they did boost recruitment.

However, using memes this way misses the point entirely. As mentioned, great memes are authorless. They move about the culture without attribution.

Much more authentic military meme campaigns are coming from soldiers themselves, such as the memes referencing the bungling idiot known simply as “Carl.” US service members and veterans run websites that host jokes and images detailing the reality of military life. Yet these serve a purpose not so different from that of official propaganda. They often feature heavily armed soldiers and serve to highlight, even in jokes, the tremendous destructive capacity of the armed forces. In turn, such memes have been turned into commercial marketing campaigns, such as one for the veteran-owned clothing company Valhalla Wear.

My friend’s picture was appropriated for a memetic operation that aimed to associate Hillary Clinton with a revival of the draft.

Recognizing this power of memes generated by ordinary people to serve a state’s propaganda narrative, in 2005 a Marine Corps major named Michael Prosser wrote a master’s thesis titled “Memetics—A Growth Industry in US Military Operations,” in which he called for the formation of a meme warfare center that would enroll people to produce and share memes as a way of swaying public opinion.

Prosser’s idea didn’t come to fruition, but the US government did come to recognize memetics as a threat. Beginning in 2011, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency offered $42 million in grants for research into what it called “social media in strategic communications,” with the hope that the government could detect “purposeful or deceptive messaging and misinformation” and create countermessaging to fight it.

Yet that research didn’t prepare DARPA for Russia’s 2016 disinformation campaign. Its extent was uncovered only by reporters and academics. That revealed a fatal flaw in national security: foreign agents are nearly impossible to detect when they hide within the civilian population. Unless social-media companies cooperate with the state to monitor attacks, this tactic remains in play.

My friend’s wedding photo provides a good illustration of how something as seemingly trivial as a meme can be turned into a powerful political weapon. In 2016, a Reddit message board, r/The_Donald, was a well-known meme factory for all things Trump. Imagery and sloganeering were beta-tested and refined there before being deployed by swarms of accounts on social-media platforms. Famous viral slogans launched from The_Donald included those having to do with “Pizzagate” and the Seth Rich murder conspiracy.

My friend’s picture was appropriated for a memetic warfare operation called #DraftMyWife or #DraftOurDaughters, which aimed to falsely associate Hillary Clinton with a revival of the draft. The strategy was simple: the perpetrators took imagery from Clinton’s official digital campaign materials, as well as pictures online like my friend’s, and altered them to make it look as if Clinton would draft women into the military if she became president. Someone who saw one of these fake campaign ads and then searched online would find that Clinton had in fact spoken in June 2016 in support of a bill that included a provision making women eligible to be drafted—but only in case of a national emergency. The bill was passed, but it was later changed to remove that requirement. This is what made #DraftMyWife sneaky—it was based on a kernel of truth.


THE FAILED REGULATION OF U.S. TREASURY MARKETS

In trading the preeminent risk-free security, the $21 trillion U.S. Treasury market supports the country’s borrowing needs, financial sta­bility, and investor appetite for a safe asset. Straddling the nexus between a securities market and a systemically essential institution, the Treasury market must function at all costs, even if other markets fail.

This Article shows that Treasury market structure is fragile, weakened by a regulatory.


Exercise and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in Military Veterans: A Systematic Review

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a prominent mental health issue for many military veterans. Recent evidence from nonveteran populations with PTSD suggests that exercise may be a potential treatment option. As such, the purpose of this review was to (1) provide the rationale for the use of exercise in the treatment of veterans with PTSD and (2) systematically review studies examining the relationship between exercise and PTSD in military veterans. A search of electronic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science) for relevant studies published in print or online from January 1980 to September 2015 produced 204 unique articles and 13 relevant studies (9 observational studies, 2 experimental, and 2 qualitative). Results of these initial studies are promising and suggest that regular exercise is inversely correlated with PTSD and its symptoms in military veterans. However, the longitudinal effect of exercise on PTSD in military veterans remains unclear because the current research lacks a common focus and suffers from several methodological limitations. Recommendations for the development of future trials are included.


Military Connection Center

The Military Connection Center provides comprehensive support to assist military connected students in navigating the transition to academic life.

Army ROTC

The Monarch Battalion provides students with the tools, training, and experiences they need to be come Officers in the U.S. Army.

Navy ROTC

The Hampton Roads Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps is one of the largest naval officer training schools in the nation.

Veteran Services

The Hampton Roads Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps is one of the largest naval officer training schools in the nation.


The New Review

Throughout its early history, the American radical movement was marked by a certain dualism between the country’s two urban centers — New York and Chicago. Socialist, Anarchist, and Syndicalist groups emerged and developed in each of these cities, often with a certain competitive tension felt towards their comrades in the opposite metropolis. Some of the rampant factionalism of American radicalism makes best sense when seen through this prism — rough and tumble Chicago versus erudite New York.

Following the ouster of the fastidious A.M. Simons as editor of the Chicago monthly International Socialist Review in 1908, publisher Charles H. Kerr and chief editor Mary Marcy moved the magazine leftward ho, shortening the length of articles, simplifying the prose, and adding photographs of people engaged in The Struggle. The new ISR was open in its embrace of the controversial and rowdy anti-capitalist activities of the Industrial Workers of the World. It was not shy in pushing the sometimes staid Socialist party of America toward greater militance. The magazine, now glossy and accessible, quickly emerged as the publication of record of advocates of revolutionary industrial unionism in America.

But the International Socialist Review was, after all, a Chicago magazine — unwashed and boisterous. The Socialists of New York City felt a continued need for a theoretical magazine closer to them in temperament, more reflective of their more cosmopolitan concerns.

So in January 1913 a new publication was born — The New Review

The lead editorial in the magazine’s debut issue took a subtle jab at the post-1908 nature of Charles Kerr’s magazine, declaring it would be “devoted to education, rather than agitation” and intended to instill “a better knowledge and clearer understanding of the theories and principles, history and methods of the International Socialist Movement.” The new journal declared its purpose to make known “the intellectual achievements of Marx and his successors” to the “awakened, self-conscious proletariat on the toilsome road that leads to its emancipation.” In practice, it proved to be a theoretical magazine by intellectuals, for intellectuals. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Never intending to be ideologically homogeneous, the trend of The New Review over the three-and-a-half years of its existence was from Center to Left. The magazine was active in attempting to make sense of the hot button issues of syndicalism and mass action in 1913, maintaining a sympathetic posture. It provided a forum for the writing of two of the principals of left wing New York literary-artistic magazine The Masses, Max Eastman and Floyd Dell. It dealt extensively with the issues of feminism, American intervention in Mexico, the growth of militarism, and the role of the International Socialist movement in the war.

Over time the wunderkind of American radicalism, Louis C. Fraina, came to play an increasing role in the magazine, helping move it on its generally leftward path. Other editorial contributors of note over the publication’s history included Herman Simpson, Louis B. Boudin, William English Walling, Moses Oppenheimer, William E. Bohn, Frank Bohn, and Isaac Hourwich.

The June 1916 issue proved the be the publication’s last. Lack of money, as always, proved terminal.


Watch the video: KILL THEM FIRST!. Legionnaire, Galaxys Edge book 1. Military sci-fi series. Writers review (July 2022).


Comments:

  1. Jeffry

    Alas! Unfortunately!

  2. Adalgar

    Excuse, I thought and pushed the question away

  3. Shaktilrajas

    It is disgrace!

  4. Jerrad

    I think the topic is very interesting. I suggest you discuss it here or in PM.

  5. Gardakazahn

    You topic read?



Write a message