Please understand instructions carefully. You just write a reaction to two posts. You know in college, there is
discussion posts. So, someone writes, and someone reacts. All you need is write two reactionS.
for the following two posts in 150 words or so each.
Please respond to these students posts in 15o words each.
First read Luvaas article attached
And then discuss how the annotations provided by students both individually and collectively illustrate whether
or not Basil Liddell Hart s preference for the indirect approach as opposed to the straightforward and
directly confrontational battle making he objected to so strongly is a sustainable and feasible mode of waging
war. Or is it an unrealistic avoidance of the painful blood price that thinkers such as Clausewitz believe is
required for victory
George, David L. ”Lloyd George on the Battle of the Somme.” The World War I Primary Documents Archive.
Last modified August 4, 1996. http://www.gwpda.org/1916/llgsomme.html.
David Lloyd George was a Liberal British statesman who became the prime minster during World War 1. In this
article it states that the Battle of the Somme was one of the two bloodiest battle ever fought up to that date. It
also claims that this battle destroyed the old German Army by killing the best officers and men. Over 400,000
men were slaughter over an indirect war and bullheaded fight. This article states that the British Army suffered
and never again had the Army they had before this battle. This article from Lloyd George’s point of view and has
a bias towards the British and against the Germans. This article is not difficult to understand or read.
11/24/2016 Register now with WritersHub.org!
Wallin, Homer N. Pearl Harbor: Why, How, Fleet Salvage, and Final Appraisal. Washington, D.C.: Naval
History Division, 1968. Accessed November 21, 2016.
The author was the man responsible for the salvage of the damaged ships after the attack on Pearl Harbor, this
means he was in an excellent position to judge the effectiveness of the Japanese attack. The main purpose of the
work is to inform about the circumstances behind the attack on Pearl Harbor and the lengths taken to resurrect
the sunk battle fleet. This work is the main source used when writing about the effectiveness of the Japanese
attack on Pearl Harbor, therefore it set the standard for conclusions on the topic. The only possible bias is the
author glorifying his own work to a minor extent, it does not however affect the reliability of the source. The
source is written for anyone wishing to learn about the topic. It does however dip into the realm of jargon on
occasion and is therefore not easily accessible to the layman. This source provides solid evidence in the form of
showing how little was gained by the surprise attack in the long run to support the idea that an indirect approach
does not give a sure advantage.