Call/WhatsApp: +1 332 209 4094

Material footprint of nations

Prompt for the Material Footprint of Nations article:

 

1)  Review the parts of the article we read in class and then finish reading it yourself.

 

2)  Prep a report for the president of Developingistan, a small but hopeful little nation somewhere in the world.  Developingistan has lots of natural resources in various stages of exploitation, eyes that are wide open, and political and economic relations with many of the world’s nations.  It is ready to escalate its game, but wants to do it right.

  • What are the big take-aways from this report?
  • What should the president of a developing nations know about material footprints?
  • What assumptions or premises of his do you want to make sure you refute?
  • When he talks to his people and the rest of the world, which vocabulary form this article should he skillfully employ?  Why and how?

 

3)  3 pages, organized not as a lecture, but as well-crafted talking paragraphs?

 

4)  Explicitly cited!

The Battle of Normandy was arguably the most significant event and inflexion point of the Second World War. Codenamed Operation Overlord, it was an operation conducted by members of the Allied Forces that were constituted of the armed forces of the United States (US), the United Kingdom (UK), Canada, France, and Norway (Foner 679). At the Trident Conference in Washington DC in May 1943 (Foner 679), leaders of the forces aforementioned decided to undertake the multi-pronged attack against the German forces in France as from 6 June 1944. The said attacks involved Operation Neptune also commonly referred to as D-Day which was characterized by the Normandy landings, in addition to the largest airborne and amphibious assaults in military history (Foner 679). Herein, this paper explores three aspects of Operation Overlord namely firstly, the actions and decisions of the American General Dwight D. Eisenhower who was appointed the Supreme Allied Commander responsible for coordinating the operation (Foner 680). Secondly, the essay evaluates the contextual implications of the historical evidence in the form of photographs of troops landing at Omaha Beach. Lastly, the discussion considers whether Operation Overlord was worth the sacrifice, in hindsight.

As mentioned above, General Eisenhower was appointed the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces and the central figure responsible for coordinating the massive amounts of resources that were involved in the expansive D-Day Operations. The said resources included an Allied army of over 2.5 million warriors lodged in England and ready to invade German-occupied France; approximately 5000 ships; and more than 4,000 small craft envisaged to be put to sea (Norman 26). Although in hindsight the operation was successful in establishing the turning point of the conflict in which the Germans ultimately lost World War II, the actions and considerations of General Eisenhower in preparation for Operation Overlord demonstrate the seriousness with which the decision to proceed with the attack was weighed by the leadership of the allied forces. Particularly, General Eisenhower carried with him a note to be released in case of failure during the proposed mission at all times during the operation’s planning (Norman 27). The failure message declared among other things the decision to withdraw troops upon defeat and the general’s personal responsibility over the outcome of the operation.

There are two fundamental reasons why General Eisenhower chose to keep the failure message with him at all times during the operation’s planning. First, the note acted as a core reminder of his personal responsibility over the fate of freedom and democracy in the US and in Europe which were hinged squarely upon the success of the D-Day operation. The note also reflected his self-awareness regarding the personal responsibility he had over the fate of the lives of the men he was sending to the battle field almost to certain death. Secondly, the general decided to keep the failure message close to him at all times because he was well-aware of the difficulties and challenges presented by the mission itself. He was well averse with the risks associated with the operation and understood clearly that the probability of failure and necessity for a potential withdrawal or turning back were both quite high. For instance, his fellow D-Day commanders from various Allied forces had warned in advance about bad weather conditions that were capable of jeopardizing the air force and navy operations (Hastings 66). The British air commander named Trafford Leigh-Mallory also warned that the troops stood a chance of suffering casualties of up to as high as 75% (Hastings 72). In consideration of these unfriendly conditions, the Supreme Commander kept the failure message close at all times indicative of the fact that he was always keenly aware of the high possibility of aborting the envisaged mission.

As mentioned above, General Eisenhower was appointed the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces and the central figure responsible for coordinating the massive amounts of resources that were involved in the expansive D-Day Operations. The said resources included an Allied army of over 2.5 million warriors lodged in England and ready to invade German-occupied France; approximately 5000 ships; and more than 4,000 small craft envisaged to be put to sea (Norman 26). Although in hindsight the operation was successful in establishing the turning point of the conflict in which the Germans ultimately lost World War II, the actions and considerations of General Eisenhower in preparation for Operation Overlord demonstrate the seriousness with which the decision to proceed with the attack was weighed by the leadership of the allied forces. Particularly, General Eisenhower carried with him a note to be released in case of failure during the proposed mission at all times during the operation’s planning (Norman 27). The failure message declared among other things the decision to withdraw troops upon defeat and the general’s personal responsibility over the outcome of the operation.

There are two fundamental reasons why General Eisenhower chose to keep the failure message with him at all times during the operation’s planning. First, the note acted as a core reminder of his personal responsibility over the fate of freedom and democracy in the US and in Europe which were hinged squarely upon the success of the D-Day operation. The note also reflected his self-awareness regarding the personal responsibility he had over the fate of the lives of the men he was sending to the battle field almost to certain death. Secondly, the general decided to keep the failure message close to him at all times because he was well-aware of the difficulties and challenges presented by the mission itself. He was well averse with the risks associated with the operation and understood clearly that the probability of failure and necessity for a potential withdrawal or turning back were both quite high. For instance, his fellow D-Day commanders from various Allied forces had warned in advance about bad weather conditions that were capable of jeopardizing the air force and navy operations (Hastings 66). The British air commander named Trafford Leigh-Mallory also warned that the troops stood a chance of suffering casualties of up to as high as 75% (Hastings 72). In consideration of these unfriendly conditions, the Supreme Commander kept the failure message close at all times indicative of the fact that he was always keenly aware of the high possibility of aborting the envisaged mission.