World War II: Why Germans Lost And Allies Won Sample College Essay

World War II began with Germany’s attack on Poland in 1939 and ended with the attack on Japan’s Hiroshima in 1945 with the atomic bomb. Several battles were fought during these six years, which led to the Allies’ success and the defeat of the Axis Powers. There are some causes of Germany’s defeat in World War II. Among these causes are some of the very wrong decisions of Hitler, which he took only because of his extreme overconfidence. Many writers are of the view that not accepting failure in Russia was Hitler’s mistake. Hitler’s big fault was that he believed in complete domination and complete destruction.

The reason behind why it took the Allies so long to win the war was the late entry of the United States into the war. When the war started, the US had maintained a neutral stance, but as Japan stroked its Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941, it decided to join the forces of the Allies. The German reaction to the troubles Britain posed was not to reconsider fundamental assumptions but instead to reject there was a problem. Given his ideological approaches, Hitler’s focus almost instantly after the defeat of France had turned to the Soviet Union. But the military’s command had moved in that direction even faster than Hitler.

It was early July 1940 when German military commanders planned the invasion of the Soviet Union. The commanders who took part in the planning included the army’s commander in chief, Field Marshal Walther von Brauchitsch, and chief of staff General Franz Halder. They gave it the name Operation Barbarossa. According to Stolfi, “Hitler conceived the invasion of the Soviet Union as a complete surprise, out of peace into war overwhelming strength, obsessed by the ambitious national socialists’ goal to colonize large areas of European Russia” (Stolfi, 1993). Given the Luftwaffe’s focus on continental war, it is not surprising that its chief of staff, General Hans Jeschonnek, would comment upon the invasion of the Soviet Union, “At last, a proper war!” (Gitelman, 1997).

Underlying the Barbarossa plan was the German leader’s ideological crusade to overcome the Jewish-Bolshevist state and implement the racial cleansing of Europe. From the beginning of the invasion, regular army personnel vigorously and enthusiastically cooperated in the carnage of Jews and other undesirables along with Russia’s educated people. Hitler’s political endeavor was to create a population of slaves to do their German conquerors’ bidding.

As an order of the day, Panzer Group 4 commanding General Erich Hoeppner stated: “The objective of this battle must be the demolition of present-day Russia and must therefore be conducted with unprecedented severity …. In particular, no adherents of the contemporary Russian Bolshevik system are to be spared.” (Forster, 1981). But that German approach only served to devastate all possibility of politically undermining the Soviet Union’s rulers, as had occurred in World War I. Stalin’s rule, though hardly popular at home, was as a result able to rally the Soviet people against an even more odious enemy and fight a war of popular liberation.

If the tactical and political theories of Operation Barbarossa were not bad enough, the operational planning and implementation were equally faulty. Operational quality is not just a matter of battleground execution but also a matter of attitude regarding the nature of one’s enemy and logistics. In the case of the former, Germany failed to seize both the numbers and stubbornness of its Soviet opponent. As Halder said in early August 1941: “The whole situation shows more and more clearly that we have underestimated the colossus of Russia …. We have already identified 360 [Soviet divisions]. The divisions are admittedly not armed and equipped in our sense, and tactically they are badly led. But there they are, and when we destroy a dozen, the Russians simply establish another dozen” (Parker, 2000).

Highlighting the extent of Germany’s folly is the fact that logisticians had warned that the advance into the Soviet Union would overrun its supply lines by the time it reached two-thirds of the distance to Leningrad in the north, to Smolensk in the center and midway down the Don in the south. Halder’s warning was not heard, while planners merely assumed their forces would destroy the Red Army in the border areas and then advance unopposed into the heart of Russia.

In October 1941, the logisticians again expressed the concern that the army faced two vital choices: either bring up heavy clothing and winter-weight fuels and set up supply dumps suitable to winter weather, or bring up ammunition and fuel to support the advance on Moscow. It was not complicated to guess the choice German commanders made, nor the results: soldiers shivered in gabardine uniforms, while their vehicles’ gearboxes froze solid (Overy, 1997).

The defeat of the Germans in front of Moscow only exposed the operational and tactical failures of the campaign against the Soviet Union. Some more strategic blunders soon followed. One of them was his declaration of war against the United States only after four days of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. While Hitler apparently never bothered to consult his senior military leaders — many of whom he was sacked for the troubles in the east — there is little evidence they would have called for an alternative course.

The navy’s command, for one, had been calling upon Hitler to declare war on the United States since midsummer. When Hitler asked his military staff in East Prussia whether anyone knew where Pearl Harbor was, not a single officer was able to locate the base on the globe — surprising strategic and geographic lack of knowledge for people planning to conquer the world (Overy, 1997).

Intelligence failures were also played an important role in Germany’s ultimate defeat. For instance, as the Allies successively broke Germany’s most important codes, its military commanders remained unaware. In fact, the Germans were amazingly ignorant of their enemies. The Soviets were able to disguise practically every one of their major offensives from 1942 to the end of the war through the clever use of deception operations; a major factor in their success was continued German contempt for those subhumans on the opposing side of the Eastern Front.

Matters were not good also on the Western Front, where the Allies executed a series of complicated deception operations to convince the Germans the great French amphibious invasion would come at Pas de Calais. Even after the Allies battled their way ashore in Normandy, trickery operations continued to persuade the OKW the main landing was yet to occur at Pas de Calais (Overy, 1997). Well before the happenings of 1944, it should have been clear to Germany the war was lost.

But the military command, its back covered by a regime that ensured the complete obedience of its people, fought on to the bitter end. Field Marshal Erwin Rommel who after the war was blamed by many German generals for not understanding policy, had perceptively prepared for the Allied assault on the basis that if the Wehrmacht failed to stop the landing itself, the war was irreversibly lost. He was right; in fact, Rommel had a far better grab of a plan than did his critics.

References

Forster, Jurgen. (1981) The Wehrmacht and the War of Extermination against the Soviet Union. Yad Vashem Studies, 14.

Gitelman, Zvi Y. (1997) Bitter legacy: confronting the Holocaust in the USSR, Publisher: Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana.

Hansen, Randall (2009) Fire and Fury: The Allied Bombing of Germany 1942-1945, Publisher: Doubleday, Canada.

Overy, Richard (1997) Why the Allies Won, Publisher: W.W. Norton, New York Parker.

Geoffrey (2000) The Cambridge illustrated history of warfare: the triumph of the West, Publisher: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Stolfi, Russel H. S., (1993) Hitler’s panzers east: World War II reinterpreted, Publisher: University of Oklahoma Press, Oklahoma.

Ethical Leadership Model In Organizations

Leadership is an essential element at all levels more especially in organizations. Leadership entails directing other elements, through influence, to get things done. On the other hand, leadership style entails the manner and approach taken by leaders in providing direction, implementing plans, and motivating people. There are various leadership styles, each with its benefits and drawbacks depending on how they are applied. Leadership models help understand what makes leaders behave in a certain manner and why they become successful in some situations and not in others. Every situation requires a different approach or strategy to be applied (Dugan, 2006). This piece of work looks at the concept of leadership with respect to the ethical leadership model.

Ethical leadership entails a leader having good character and the right values. This allows the leader to set a good example for others and withstand any form of temptation which may occur in the course of fulfilling any work-related practice. However, the reality of ethical leadership is relatively complex, and the stakes involved are high.

An ethical leader should possess the following characteristic: Should articulate and embody the purpose and values of the institution, be focused on organizational success as opposed to personal ego, identify the capabilities in people and look for ways to develop them and create value for all stakeholders, and establish an environment that allows for appropriate conversation about ethics and value. An ethical leader should also be able to establish various dissent mechanisms and have a charitable understanding of other peoples’ values. One should also make tough calls and be creative and frame actions in an ethical manner (Sternberg, 2007).

As a principal in a school, I have a responsibility to ensure that everything in the institution is carried out accordingly. This necessitates that I ethically exercise leadership. As a leader, I have to be a role model to all people in the institution, particularly the teachers and students. In the course of carrying out my responsibilities, I would want the teachers and students to see me as a figure that makes things done in a positive and ethical way. I would cultivate in them a spirit of carrying out things in a manner that is appropriate, as a way of fulfilling responsibility but not as a result of force.

Ethical decision making is a crucial element in any leader. In any decision made, one should consider all the parties involved and the impact the decision made would have on each of them. All the aspects surrounding a situation should be evaluated critically to ensure that the best decision is made. The decision should consider the interests of the majority. Personal ego should not influence decision making. Leaders must make decisions that are not only beneficial to them but also for the good of other people (Judge and Piccolo, 2004).

Various people view responsibility differently. As a leader, I ought to ensure that peoples’ attitudes towards responsibilities are positive. For instance, all the parties involved should carry out their duties in a way that helps in the achievement of the institution’s vision and mission. In all the activities involved, critical thinking and innovation should always be fostered. Problem-solving and decision-making should also be encouraged among the individuals.

Every person, especially the leaders, should also ensure that a learning community or environment is maintained at all times. This will ensure that the students learn to be responsible not only for themselves but also for one another. Leadership style is a crucial element. It influences many people in their day-to-day life. If leaders carry their responsibilities in an ethical manner, the people who are led tend to appreciate them and live a responsible life, and mind others in all they do. The vice versa is true. As a leader, I would make my values and ethics known. This would be through my leadership style and actions.

A leader should actively involve all the stakeholders in the organization. As a leader, I will ensure that the views of all stakeholders are taken into account in decision making as well as in carrying out the organization’s activities. For this reason, I would employ the participative or democratic leadership style. This style entails providing room for other team members to contribute to an organization’s processes, especially decision making.

Although I would be required to make the final decision, I would engage others as much as possible. The participative leadership style is very effective in enhancing job satisfaction and developing people’s skills through proper representation and involvement. Teamwork is good, and although participation takes time, it eventually gives good results. All stakeholders, irrespective of their position in the learning institution, should be allowed to participate. This will ensure that they work effectively as they feel well represented in the organization and hence the desire to work hard for better individual and organizational performance (Judge, Bono, Ilies and Gerhardt, 2002).

Leaders are involved with some tasks and duties. Enforcement of policies is a critical role that ought to be taken carefully by all the leaders involved. As the principal, I will be expected to foresee the enforcement of various policies related to the school’s activities and practices. Some of the policies would include those that govern examinations, discipline, and teaching and learning practice. In the process of enforcing these policies, I would ensure that ethical principles are adhered to. This will allow that the interests of all the stakeholders, including the teachers, parents, and students, are considered. This is a positive step that will allow the smooth running of the learning institution as everyone feels appreciated and well represented (Dull, 2009).

Leadership teams and support groups are vital in contributing to the overall success of an organization. They are tools that facilitate the management of an organization through coming up with ideas and how they ought to be implemented to meet the goal and objectives of the organization. This, therefore, stipulates that they should be handled effectively. I would like to be a leader who embraces participative or democratic leadership. I would utilize a functional leadership model.

This is a model that perceive leadership as a set of behavior that assists a group in carrying out its duties and reach its goals. As per this model, leadership functions meet needs in three separate areas, namely on the individual, a task, and a team. Any member can contribute significantly to an organization and thus can participate in leadership. Much emphasis should be placed on the manner an organization is led rather than the people engaged in leadership (Michelle, Craig, and Jeffrey, 2006).

Reference List

Dugan, J.P. (2006). Explorations Using the Social Change Model: Leadership Development among College Men and Women. Journal of College Student Development, Vol. 47(2), pp. 217-225.

Dull, M. (2009). Results-Model Reform Leadership: Questions of Credible Commitment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory (2009) 19 (2): 255-284.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R. and Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 87(4), 765-780.

Judge, T. A and Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Test of Their Relative Validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 89(5), 755-768.

Michelle C. B., Craig L. P. and Jeffrey C. K. (2006). The Importance Of Self- And Shared Leadership In Team Based Knowledge Work: A Meso-Level Model of Leadership Dynamics, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21(4) pp.296 – 318.

Sternberg, R.J. (2007). A Systems Model of Leadership: WICS. American Psychologist, Vol. 62(1), 34-42.

Concepts Of Legalizing Marijuana

Introduction

The battle against illegal drugs is one of the most costly wars a country can venture on. This is because, apart from costs associated with the venture, when it comes to arrests, the prosecution process, and prison costs, the war denies a country’s medical sector a chance of exploiting the medicinal part of some illegalized drugs, for example, Marijuana. In addition, considering the amount of revenue, which a country can gain via taxes, the war has many associated losses than gains.

Although this is the case, it is important to note that, to some extent, the prohibition of illegal drug use has many associated benefits, considering the effects of some drugs on individuals. However, it is important to remember that the use or selling of some illegal drugs, for example, Marijuana has many benefits than negative effects, a fact that makes it necessary for governments to legalize its use.

Background information

Marijuana is one of the most commonly used illegal drugs on the American continent. From statistics, more than sixty-five million Americans at some point in their lives have used the Drug, a factor many attributes to its mild effects on users. Although this is the case, the use of such a drug is a criminal offense, which is prosecutable in a court of law. It is necessary to note that such prohibitions have not limited its wide use among the American citizenry, a fact that many associates with its medicinal importance.

The war against Marijuana traces its origin from the Chinese empire, where inhabitants used it as a pain remedy. Because of the nature of movements during the colonial period, its use moved very fast to other corners of the world, where America is inclusive; as a result, the establishment of the British colonies. In the early years of its use, the majority of individuals, more so medical practitioners, used it as a pain remedy and as an appetite-triggering factor, although some individuals used it for pleasure purposes. As a result, of its increased use and abuse, the federal government sought to reduce its use through the Marijuana Tax Act that the government put into use in 1937.

Such efforts gained little due to great antagonism the act faced from members of the medical society. Effecting of jail terms and the use of heavy fines accompanied the adoption of the tax measure hence, making the life of marijuana users very hard. Adoption of the Controlled Substance Act by the federal government boosted the war against its use; due to the categorization of the Drug with other drugs, the federal government considered “the schedule 1” drugs, for example, Cocaine. Due to many protests against its illegalization, there was a policy change, which depended on a state’s acceptance or denial of its use later on.

Such provisions were short-lived because, in 1980, President Reagan prohibited its use, a case that happened in the subsequent governments, primarily the Bush’s (senior) administration. Since then, many changes have occurred in the Marijuana legislation debate because some states permit its medical uses, for example, California, whereas other states up to today remain adamant about changing the marijuana legislation (Institute of Medicine, 2010, Para. 1).

Pictorial Representations of the Drug

Drug

Drug

Why legalize Marijuana?

This is one of the most raging debates in many societies, the U.S., in particular. This is because, as compared to other commonly legalized and abused drugs, for example, nicotine products, this Drug has fewer associated side effects and negative impacts on individuals. This is a fact proved by researches, where there is a clear indication of minimal risks associated with the Use of Marijuana when compared to other legalized substances abused mostly by individuals (Schaffer, 2010, p.1).

Mortality Comparison Graphs

Risk of death

Substance abuse related deaths

Apart from such minimal death numbers associated with the use of Marijuana, it is important to note that this Drug is very significant economically, socially, and in the health sector. This is a fact that federal governments have failed to recognize because of the apparent divisions that exist as concerns the political ideologies on the legalization and the illegalization of Marijuana use. That is, each section of the political divide presents different views as concerns the adoption of laws, which are crucial as concerns its legalization. Another primary point which antagonist of the legalization debate fails to recognize is that the federal government uses many resources in taming drug use.

Marijuana has many associated significances that range from the economic perspective to the health dimension. To start with, this Drug is essential medically in the war against some very dangerous diseases. Before venturing into the medicinal importance of the Drug, it is important to note that, medically, this Drug is not very dangerous when comparing its health effects to health effects resulting from other age-legalized substances, for example, alcohol.

In terms of medical care, this Drug has many uses that include its use as an appetite stimulator, nausea remedy, mostly during chemotherapy, analgesic remedy. In addition to this, medics use this Drug in the treatment of Glaucoma, Huntington’s chorea, Spinal cord injuries, and in some cases, medics can use it in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. On the other hand, Marijuana plays a central role when it comes to the treatment of brain tumors (Louie, 2005, p.1).

During cancer chemotherapy, because of the adverse nature of the chemicals used, this Drug acts as a remedy to nauseate feelings associated with such a process. Many medics call it a lifesaver primarily because; most chemotherapy drugs have extremely depressing side effects associated with eating problems. Due to such effects, the majority of individuals may stop attending to such therapies, a factor that shortens their lifespan, hence the importance of Marijuana in this sector.

As concerns the treatment of Multiple Sclerosis (M.S.), this Drug plays a crucial role when it comes to treating problems associated with this medical complication, for example, muscle spasms, speech and sight problems, muscle shivers, and bladder control difficulties. Although some individuals may argue that there exist other drugs, which heal the same effects, scientific researchers have proved that cannabis is more effective because of its long-lasting effects.

When it comes to glaucoma, the majority of the recommended treatment remedies have very many associated resultant effects, a fact that this Drug eliminates because of its long-lasting effects, as concerns the restoration of the eyesight (Concept420, 2010, p.1). Other medical applications that exist in common health scenarios include helping HIV and AIDS patients to deal with uncontrolled weigh problems, primary those suffering from the AIDS wasting syndrome (Joy & Mack, 2001, pp. 86-95 and Forgaty, Rawstorne, Prestage, Crawford, Grierson & Kiprax, 2007, pp. 296-299).

Combining all these facts clearly illustrates how important cannabis is important when it comes to any citizen’s health, ranging from young children to the old aged. In this regard, one ethical question arises; why should a government that is fighting to ensure it maintains a healthy citizenry illegalize the use of one of the most important medical remedies? This is because, as a medical drug, Marijuana is one of the contributing factors to a healthy citizenry. Such healthy populations contribute a lot when it to the economic development of any nation, directly through active participation in jobs and indirectly through saving millions of dollars that the federal government spends annually on the health sector.

Economically, Marijuana is very crucial. That is, the federal government spends many millions in taming its use, forgetting that there can be very many tax gains out of legalizing its use. The Drug has a very high value when comparing its production and selling costs. Although many may argue that such prices are soaring because of its illegality hence, dealers are few; it is important to note that, considering its wide use, control of such a trade can earn the government a lot of revenue, in addition, to save the millions that it spends in taming its use. The government spends such a huge amount of fees on hiring advocates to sustain court procedures to keep the prisoners comfortable; in terms of housing, food, and health care.

For example, in a time span of 25 years from 1965, Marijuana arrest numbers soured from the previous number (eleven million in 1965) to twenty million (in 1990). Currently, expenses that pertain to the war amount to more than sixty-eight billion American dollars annually, a fact that directly results due to the numerous arrests daily (Wolff, 2009, Para. 8). In addition, when comparing the numbers of drug prisoners in all American prisons, individuals accused of this Drug related offenses account for almost 44% of the overall number of individuals arrested on drug counts. For example, in 2006 only, there were approximately 830 000 Marijuana arrests (a figure that is very abnormally high). As ascertained by the uniform crime figures, this was an almost fifteen percent increase from the number of such arrests in the previous year (Dubner, 2007, Para. 11).

Such numbers clearly indicate how much the federal government overspends in one section of the judicial system; taming of Marijuana (Cables News Network: CNN, 2009, p.1). In addition, such as the expense in the police department because police systems need continuous upgrading in order to net current trends in the Marijuana business. The government loses as a result of the war on drugs amount to almost $ 7.7 million, a figure that keeps on increasing as the drug selling syndicate changes.

On the other hand, the federal government spends approximately six hundred and thirty million American dollars in taming the vice in schools through educational programs on the negative effects of drug use, programs that have failed to achieve their mandates. Therefore, considering these expenses and the prevalent global economic crisis facing nations, where the U.S. is included, the federal government can utilize such funds in other developmental projects, which enhance the quality of life of the American citizenry (Dubner, 2007, p.1).

In addition to the many funds, which the federal government can save out of legalizing Marijuana, the whole idea is very important from a tax-revenue gain perspective. Such gains are apparent in California, one of the few states, which have legalized its usage in medical fields. As reported by Wolff (2009, Para. 7), the state gets almost $ 1.4 million. It is important to note here that such gains are due to partial legalization because the federal government has prohibited such sales. Further, Wolff adds, if the current call for legalization sails through, the government is bound to increase its revenue from its sales to approximately fourteen million dollars annually.

Considering such gains, the likelihoods of more gains to the federal government’s revenue scheme are high, considering that this will be a national thing and not a single state issue. This is because, considering the fact that, currently, U.S. citizens spend more than eleven billion on the Drug annually, subsequent legalization and taxation of each consumer can result in a $ 660 million gain annually. It is important to note here that such figures are mere approximations; hence, the likelihoods of more gains are high with the legalizing of its sales. This, in many ways, is very important in alleviating the budgetary deficits, which may occur.

Another important reason why the government should prohibit its use is that the war against its use has gained little, as concerns the reduction of its use. No one can deny that its abuse is very prevalent in most American schools, more so high schools. The majority of individuals attribute this fact on the premise that the law prohibits the selling of some other legalized substances, for example, alcohol and cigarettes to minors (individuals under the age of twenty-one years).

However, because such laws do not exist when it comes to Marijuana’s selling, but rather the law prohibits its use completely, the issue of age is of little significance to most dealers; hence, any student s can obtain it at their own convenience or pleasure. This largely put at stake governmental efforts of reducing the abuse of substances considered harmful to one’s health. As the Marijuana Legalization Organization (2010, p.1) argues, instead of prohibiting the use of this like a drug, the government should legalize its use but put in place required educational programs and other regulating policies. Such regulating policies are crucial as a prevention mechanism of keeping the youths away from drugs.

On the other hand, as concerns, the little achievement of this form of prohibitory legislation, provisions in the current existing cannabis prohibiting laws have less consideration as concerns the drug rehabilitation programs. This is because; such the existing prohibitory laws have specifications about penalties and jail terms hence, ignoring the fact that most of those convicted individuals are addicts who need serious medical and psychological help.

Conclusion

In conclusion, considering the many economic, health, and social gains, which may result as a product of legalizing Marijuana, it is very important for the federal government to weigh such gains, hence legalize its usage. This is because, Marijuana, although a drug considered illegal, has no adverse effects on individual health as compared to other federal age-legalized drugs. For the achievement of all these gains, it is important for the federal government to take precautions on the many facts that surround its legalization, for example, recommended uses and age considerations.

Reference List

Cables News Network: CNN. (2009). Legislators aim to snuff out penalties for pot useCNN

Concept420. (2010). Medical Marijuana Uses. Concept420. Web.

Dubner, S. (2007). On the legalization-or not-of Marijuana. New York Times. 

Fogarty, A., Rawstorne, P., Prestage, G., Crawford, J., Grierson, J., & Kippax, S. (2007). Marijuana as therapy for people living with HIV/ AIDS: social and health impacts, AIDS care, 19(2), 295-301.

Institute of Medicine. (2010). what is the problem? History and background of Marijuana. Duke.edu. Web.

Joy, E J., & Mack, A. (2001). Marijuana as medicine?: the science beyond controversy.Washington; National academic Press. 

Louie, W. (2005). Clinical uses of Marijuana. Altmed. Web.

Marijuana Legalization Organization. (2010). Why Marijuana should be legal. MLO. 

Nasaw, D. (2009). Could marijuana tax shore up California’s finances? Guardian. 

Schaffer, C. A. (2010). Basic facts about the war on drugs. Schaffer Library of Drug Policy. 

Stateman, A. (2009). Can Marijuana rescue California’s economy? Time Magazine. Web.

Wolff, M. (2009). Legalizing marijuana can reduce crime, increase revenue for state. Daily Sundial. Web.

error: Content is protected !!