My Military History term paper

[angka]

I've taken the last week off from DU in order to pour my heart and soul into this. It's the final paper for my HIS 369, US military history.

I think it's pretty cogent, and manages to address a number of present-day issues. If you find anything glaringly bad, please let me know so I can fix it before turning this into my highly demanding professor tomorrow!

:)

(on edit: he said a bibliography wasn't necessary, since he assigned the books, but can provide one on request).

[Maddy McCall]

1. don't use contractions (isn't) or courtesy titles (Mr.)

Instead, say "is not" and use only the last name after first usage of the whole name. For instance, say Greg Smith the first time you refer to him, and then Smith afterwards...not Mr. Smith.

[fishnfla]

2. It looks good my friend

but your demanding prof. will not like the intro, especially the line that goes "you might say...." that line assumes the readers expectations, with the personal 'you'
you could change that to "it could be said' or 'it has been said' something generic.

Also another recommendation. The body of your text is excellent, but I thought that the relationship between your intro and the main body lacks cohesion. State your thesis more clearly right up front and tie it into the main body by examples if possible. Do the same for your conclusion. profs dig it when things are packaged neatly like that.

[angka]

3. good stuff.

i am also finding and fixing numerous typos. i mean fucking numerous.

a hahaha

and i will try to work that a intro a little better into the erst of the paper...

[fishnfla]

4. your conclusion is solid

with references to the main, do the same thing to your intro

Also in the opening line "alive today" is reduntant

the line "this gap is filled for most in America" is a clunker

Overall, with a new intro, A work. Well done.

[markses]

5. Disagree

There is no convention in history writing that would disallow a phrase like "you might say." In fact, it even sounds better than the pompous "it could be said that," with its phantom subject.

I'm far more concerned with what you correctly point out: the seeming lack of cohesion between a recognizable thesis and the body of the argument. The keegan section is most worrisome, because it reads like pure summary of a secondary source. I assume the professor of military history has not only read (the perfectly dreadful book)"The Face of Battle," but also studied it in some detail. Why then, should he or she have to read your summary. Some paragraphs are thrown in for seemingly no reason at all, like the aside about drinking rum before going over the top at the Somme. What is the relation of this paragraph to the remainder of the argument? There are a few paragraphs like this. Don't be surprised oif you get a comment that says something like "Don't be dragged all over the place by your source material." Your paper is not a book review, or even a demonstration that you've read a book or two. You are supposed to be making an argument. Often, while reading the paper, I felt that the writer was just noting facts he or she found interesting. That's well and good, but not exactly the purpose of an academic paper in history!

Also, must revise all the semicolons to commas. Semicolon use incorrect throughout.

Sorry to be a jagoff. There's a lot of good stuff here. I would have liked to see more attention paid to the media angle. there was a fascinating paper recently, for example, in the British Journal of Psychiatry; the authors argued that the "flashback" phenomenon in post traumatic stress disorder was specific to a culture drenched in visual technologies like television and cinema. I thought you were making similar arguments about attitudes towards combat in a "post-combat" culture, in which the media hyper-produces images of "combat," but relatively few have experienced it. that would be a fascinating argument, but we certainly don't need countless asides about the relative ethical value of the murder of French prisoners at Agincourt (just cuz Keegan happened to mention it) in order to make it.

My revision suggestion: Go through each paragraph and explain to yourself what each one has to do with the overall theme. Don't be afraid to nix several pages (I think almost all of the Keegan section - which is summary - could be fruitfully replaced by your own arguments, for example).

I'd give this a C.

[fishnfla]

6. the conventions call for 3rd person

personal references are taboo. It sounds more pompous to put words in your readers mouth or mind, IMO. You cannot assume what the reader may think or say, that is a prejudgement. You cannot assume that judgement as part of your thesis.

[markses]

7. Conventions most certainly do not

As for the hard and fast rules, that may fly in 11th grade, but this is a college level paper and is expected to have a bit more rhetorical savvy. In other words, you can say "you" and even "I" - yes, even in historical writing. Since I have taught writing, and even history writing, many times in a major Research 1 university, I can assure you that the so-called conventions you've listed here went the way of the dodo in, say, 1965 - if not earlier.

[fishnfla]

9. Well excuse me, Dr. Condescending

I'll never forget what a professor once told me: "You could say that, but you'd be wrong...."

to me, the sentence does not work, especially out of context with any other "rhetorically savvy" references in this work.

I'll bet you 100 bucks the kid gets an A. you sound pompous enough to afford it.

[markses]

11. Oh, yeah

I'm condescending because I disagreed with your reading of the conventions? You made a claim. I disputed it. That makes me "Dr. Condescending." Thin skin much? My bad.

The kid might get an A, but he shouldn't get an A without serious revisions. And, just to recall, I agreed with the kid's sentence on that point, rather than yours.

[fishnfla]

12. How 'bout $1000 bucks on that A?

I dont have alot of degrees or anything, so I could use the cash. I like the kids work, and I'm feeling lucky. Whaddya' say?

Sir, you made the references to an 11th grade education, dodo birds and 1965. Come on Professor Supercilious, your skin tough enough for the bet?

1000 bucks straight up. A or nothing. A minus, you win

[markses]

21. I think you've misconstrued my comments

On 11th grade: I was not making a reference to "11th grade education" (in fact, I said no such thing, so the slippage is interesting). Rather, I was pointing out the fact that high school writing is often taught with hard and fast rules (i.e., don't use personal pronouns), while writing instruction in American colleges often takes a rhetorical approach: whether you use or don't use personal pronouns depends on your audience, purpose, and context (and, as you correctly point out, conventions of the discourse community). This is not an insult to high school writing teachers; the use of "rules based" pedagogies in these settings can be thought of as a good base. I was merely pointing out that such rule based pedagogies are not prevalent in upper level undergraduate courses (300-level HIST), or in most university level writing instruction (even first-year composition).

"The way of the dodo in 1965" - This is a historical claim, and I'm quite frankly baffled that you construed it as an insult. "The way of the dodo" is a common (I thought) idiom for extinction. I apologize if that phrase struck you as an insult. I certainly meant none. When I say 1965, I mean it. The kind of rules-based writing pedagogy that dominated university writing instruction from the late 19th century (current traditional rhetoric, as it is euphemistically called) began to wane seriously in the mid-1960's. This is a historical claim, once again, and I apologize if you found it insulting.

As for your bet, I'll pass. It is a nice rhetorical move, though! I hereby challenge you, etc. I would give the paper a C for the reasons stated above. I'd like to see a few reasons for an A. Of course, neither of us has the assignment sheet, nor do we know the goals of the assignment, nor do we know the explicit grading criteria, nor do we know the content and design of the course out of which this paper emerges. In this sense, grading the paper is impossible. When I said "C," I was thinking of the goals of the courses I taught, where the incoherence of several sections would cause major deductions. You make a similar claim yourself, noting the lack of cohesion between the intro and the body! That seems a pretty important problem for a written argument. How would you justify an "A" if that is your critique? If the goal is to merely demonstrate that you read Keegan closely and noted a few facts, the paper would get a higher grade. I don't think that's a useful exercise, however.

[fishnfla]

13. Come on

You're so, so,..... right! You know it! Back it up!

Tell you what, 100 bucks. A or nothing. The young man here gets it for his college education. As a teacher, you can appreciate that. That way he wont cheat either one of us.

This offer stands until noon tomorrow.

[Yupster]

19. Face of battle

Agree with you. One of the most disappointing books I've read in years.

[angka]

22. wow! thank you all.

the biggest thing for me is that i should have posted a draft to DU several days ago. all of your suggestions have been excellent, and i have tried to incorporate as many of them as i could in a feverish few minutes of editing before class.

to those who 'graded' me, i appreciate it. even the guy who gave me a C—i have tried to revise my poor semicolon usage. and i hope it lives up to the guys who gave me an A...

this was an analysis of four military history books and one obscure Mark Twain essay. i was not asked to present a thesis, but to summarize and 'distill' (hate that term) the key arguments made by each author. at the end i was to lay out a common conclusion to these arguments (no small task). my professor did not ask for a specific format.

and thanks again. although there's no time to incorporate every suggested edit, i am pleased to have found yet another thing DU is good for!

[legin]

10. I'd probably second

about stating you thesis more clearly.

"This is the point I'm making. This is the proof".

Maybe a study of Starpass might give you some pointers.
:evilgrin:

[legin]

8. Being very nit-picky and not really on topic

and probably also wrong but I'm not sure whether Hitler's invaison of Russia can be regarded as folly, it was the way he did it that was wrong. Reading about Stalin's colectivisation of agriculture gives one an easy political plan for invading Russia (R. Conquest, The Harvest of Sorrow).

Stalin killed many millions of his inhabitants, twice, without any comeback, because he controled the country. Hitler's mistake was trying to kill the inhabitants before he controled the country.

From JFC Fuller's 'The Conduct of War 1789-1967(?)':

Vis-a-vis Russia, Hitler's problem was one of time: could he defeat and establish his Lebensraum before the United States intervened in the war ? If he could not , then of a certainty the Western negative front (quiet ??? legin) would once again become a positive front, and he would be caught between two fronts, the thing he dreaded most. The solution lay in the correct choice of the Russian strategical centre of gravity, and reference to Clausewitz would have told him where it lay. Had not the latter pointed out that Russia could only be subdued 'by effects of internal dissension' ? Later, had not Theodor Mommsen compared the Russian Empire with a dust-bin held together by the rusty hoop of Tsardom; an latter still had not Lenin declared: "Nowhere in the world is there such oppression of the majority of the country's population as there is in Russia: the Great Russians form only 43 per cent of the population, i.e. less than half; the rest have no rights as belonging to other nationalities. Out of 170m of the population of Russia, about 100m are oppressed and without rights".

In 1941, Stalin's oppression was incalculably worse than any Tsar's, and the Ukrainians, White Russians, Balts, Cossacks, Caucasians; and many others had not forgotten the horrors of his ten years of collectivisation (1929-1938), during which some 10m people had been massacred, transported and starved to death. In 1941, in the Ukraine, White Russia and the Baltic States alone, some 40m people were yearning for liberation; therefore, in order to disintegrate the colossus, all Hitler had to do was to cross the Russian frontier as a liberator and terminate collectivisation. It would have won over to him, not only the minorities, but it would also have dissolved Stalin's armies, because they so largely consisted of collectivised serfs. This is why Stalin dreaded a German invasion, and he did not believe that the Germans would be so foolish as to conduct the war 'with arms alone'.

"Had the Germans", writes Reitlinger, "brought with them to Russia something like President Wilson's Fourteen Points of 1918, Russia would have disintegrated just as Germany had done then". And following the argument, he adds, "Hitler need never have diverted his armies from Moscow in order to secure the Ukraine, since the Ukrainians would have offered it to him". Instead he proclaimed the inhabitants of the USSR to be Untermenschen (sub humans), and decided on a war of extermination.

The invasion was launched on 22nd June 1941, and in the battles up to 26th September, when the great battle of Kiev ended, no less than 1.5m prisoners were captured, and by Christmas nearly another million were in the bag. The reason for these great numbers is given by General Anders: "Many soldiers", he writes, "seeing the war as an opportunity for a change of order in Russia, wished for German victory and therefore surrendered in great masses ... many high Soviet officers went over to the enemy offering to fight against the Soviets".

Everywhere the Germans were welcomed as liberators by the common people: the Ukrainians looked upon Hitler as the 'saviour of Europe', and the White Russians were eager to fight on the German side. Guderian tells us that "women came out of their villages on to the very battlefield bringing wooden platters of bread and butter and eggs and, in my case at least, refused to let me move on before I had eaten". And at Rostov, writes Erich Kern, "all over the city there were people waiting on the streets ready to cheer and welcome us in ... Never before had I seen such a sudden transformation. Of Bolshevism, there was no more. The enemy had gone ... Wherever we went we met laughing and waving people ... The Soviet Empire was creaking at the joints".

Then came Himmler and his infamous Security Service .........

[aldian159]

23. Hitler's biggest problem was invading late and the winter

He wanted to invade in early May, but trouble in Yugoslavia delayed him. He decided on June 22 because it was the day after Napoleon invaded Russia in 1812, and Hitler loved Napoleon (and Ceaser). Didn't help that the winter was bitterly cold.

I give the paper a B, even though it seems a little late to grade...

[angka]

24. i will take that B...

unfortunately, i will have to wait a week or two to see what my professor says. i'll be sure to let you know. :)

thanks again for all comments, hopefully i'll get to protract my editing process a little more next time.

[TBURNS]

14. Paper

I will check it out in the morning, thanks for sharing.

T.B.
http://conservativeissues.com
Balancing out Politics

[DS1]

15. i hope you corrected those spelling mistakes

including the less obvious ones.

ignore the bet going on down below, get your paper done and in on time.

[dreissig]

16. Military Ordinance

You mean ordnance not ordinance. Your spell-check won't pick that up.

[Adjoran]

17. be careful

If your professor is at all a stickler about plagarism. Words lifted from the texts must be in quotation marks or independently paragraphed and footnoted.

[Fall_No_Further]

18. Regarding 1st and 3rd person usage.

Speaking from the standpoint of one who has had to do a great many papers and essays in the course of a lifetime, it is usally the best policy to stick to 3rd person instead of 1st person perspective when writing a paper unless one has prior authorization (implicit or otherwise) from the professor that the more direct and personl 1st person is acceptable. 3rd person tends to lend itself to a more detached viewpoint, and helps one focus on the logic of the paper, since the paper is itself seen from a more detached perspective once the personal perspective is removed. Moreover, while 1st person allows certain rhetorical devices to be employed which can, in the appropriate context, be quite effective, it is usually advantageous to steer clear of the personal or satirical devices 1st person is most suited to when the topic for the paper is analytical in nature.

IMHO. 3rd person just plain out seems to be what more profs have preferred more of the time. While it _is_ possible to effectively use a 1st person perspective in an analytical paper, such effective use depends far too much on the professor in question for there to be a generalized statement that "1st person is OK in college."

[Yupster]

20. Been a long time since I've been in college, so

could someone explain what kind of papaer this is?

Is this a thesis papaer where you state a thesis and then prove it?

If that's the case I'm having trouble finding the thesis. Is it that war is worse than people think?

I also am unfamiliar with the book summary style. Is this normal for this type of a paper?

Anyway, someone help out this old college history guy. What kind of a paper is this and is this format routine in college today?