History Argumentative Essay

1

Akua Darkwah

World War II

Wars of international magnitude are mainly reliant on political policy which influences

military strategy and action and that was exactly the case for America during the World War II.

Hanson Baldwin’s essay on “The Political Shortsightedness of U.S. Strategy” emphasizes

the strategic policy applied by the United States in wars that it has participated in. The United

States usually assumes a direct approach with an aim of victory without a clear grand design tied

to a political policy. The United States’ fellow super powers Britain and Russia on the other hand

look at the bigger picture during war. The United States aims victory in war only to eradicate an

immediate threat without consideration of future implications such as the case of the World War

II. America terribly failed to relate and integrate the relation between military strategy and

political policy. This is evident in the Grand Alliance which the U.S. formed with Russia to

launch the Europe invasion but the war was unfortunately led by a mistake of unconditional

surrender. Consequently, there were casualties and a Russian domination after war. In addition

failing to act objectively by using a separation of parties that is the German people, its rulers

would have achieved an efficient war strategy and united the opposition to the cause of war to

oust the Nazi rule in Germany.

Mark Stoler’s essay, “The political Wisdom of U.Ss Strategy” depicts the policy adopted

by the U.S government during World War II as a politically motivated strategy that focused on

achieving the political goals of the nation. The U.S. negotiated its position during the World War

II among its allies in such a way that it ensured quick and decisive triumph. The aim was to

achieve control over certain key areas since the Allied forces also had distinct political interests

that they sought to defend and accomplish. Thus the military strategy was interwoven with

Comment [p1]: Wars by definition are conflicts between nations and thus international. We call some events, like the Civil War, a war but it was there was no formal declaration of war.

Comment [p2]: I am not sure what you mean by this?

Comment [p3]: This is a better statement. It is direct and to the point.

Comment [p4]: Why does he say Unconditional Surrender was a mistake?

Comment [p5]: This isn’t clear.

Comment [p6]: This isn’t what Stoler argued, but the other guy

Comment [p7]: vague

2

political position of the United States in the World War II to accomplish its interests. The foreign

policy that resulted in signing of the Normandy invasion of 1944 and providing aid to Russia

only came with an America agenda at the forefront which was to prevent invasion of Europe and

consequent by Russian forces whilst still blocking British proposal to adopt a slow military

action which would yield British goals of territorial expansion and imperial dominance in

Europe. Thus, it is incorrect to imply or conclude that America had no clear design in the World

War II since the inception of the second-front was America’s initiative which gained support

from the Allied forces and led to a victory on America policy and stand in a decisive and

efficient way.

The essay by Mark Stoler “The Political Wisdom of U.S. Strategy” is more convincing

because it is it owns it’s well thought out and justified premises that leads to an informative

conclusion that war is a dynamic affair and different perspectives ought to be explored in order

to establish what really drove the America agenda and course of action in the World War II. For

instance, Mark Stoler explicitly asserts that war does not happen in vacuum, but it is rather

influenced by political as well as conflicting interests of parties involved as it is the case of the

Allied forces during World War II. Being a former navy man the president is no doubt cast an

experienced individual who has both theoretical and practical experience in war and its collateral

principles and relations to politics. Hence he was no doubt serving a president and a commander-

in-chief well aware of political implication of military actions. I find this a credible analysis

since it convinces the reader that a commander-in-chief drew his conclusion from experience and

advice from chiefs of staff in all military departments as well as his officials from the department

of state. Therefore, the consequent events were a combined unfolding decision made from a

political perspective.

Comment [p8]: word choice

Comment [p9]: word choice. Did the British want slow or an indirect plan?

Comment [p10]: This isn’t clear.

3

The World War II was definitely a cross-national affair which the United States had to

weigh options and promote its national agenda by campaigning for its national interests in

relation to the outcome of the war.

Grade: B- 82

When writing try to avoid putting together a lot of descriptive words connected by conjunctions.

That only muddies your meaning. It would help with being more exact with your examples.

Tell me what unconditional surrender was and why it was controversial.