George Patton And Shakespeare 's Speech

In 1944, the United States war effort in Europe was just starting to pick up. Even though the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor occurred just three years prior, the growing power of the Third Reich could not be ignored. During this time, France was already occupied by Nazi Germany and Hitler's war machine was on the path of conquering all of Eurasia. In an attempt to combat this immense threat, the U.S. formulated a plan to engage the German forces through an invasion of Normandy. This bloody offensive would be remembered in infamy as D-Day. Shortly before this violent clash of U.S. and German forces, the inexperienced men of the United States Third Army was given an encouraging and inspiring speech by the four star general George S. Patton.

Drill and discipline, are what make it possible for a victory in battle. If warriors going into battle are not accurately trained in the practice of drill and discipline it can result in a mere senseless blood brawl ending with large amounts of casualties and grave losses. In the battle of Agincourt 1415 is was a battle between King Henry V of England whom wanted to reclaim lands both “won and lost during the previous century” from France which was under the rule of King Charles VI although the army outnumbered the English, it was in this battle the French suffered many casualties due to poor strategy. In the battle of Waterloo 1815 two hundred years later it was a battle between the English army commended by the Duke of Wellington and

Throughout Patton’s speech, harsh and foul language is used abundantly. The speech begins with Patton identifying the American public opinion of not wanting to enter the war. Patton refuses this and establishes Americans as wanting to fight, and instilling American pride into his audience. Patton then addresses the men’s fears of dying and killing but shadows it with their duty to country, and honor to their manhood. The speech then moves to the importance of being a team and how every man has a crucial part to play, whether it be a truck driver or infantryman. Patton then feels the need to quickly remind everyone that his presence in England is to remain a secret. After this, he reinstates the mission and why they are here. They are here to defeat the Germans in Europe, then move

beliefs on as well as their standards. Honor Goes hand and hand with Loyatly. To be loyal to a cause greater then my own is one reason that drove

A leader unwilling to sacrifice individual goals for the good of the unit cannot convince other unit members to do so. The mission suffers with potentially devastating effects. While personal goals often coincide with Army goals, there is no room for personal agendas at the expense of the institution or the American people. It is a standard in the hierarchy of military customs and courtesies that the leader must display to his subordinates that he is willing to put in extra effort, sacrifice personal time, and show initiative and motivation in order to achieve the same from his Soldiers.

Passion is a necessary trait all excellent speakers use to persuade their audiences. A passionate speaker uses pathos to sway his or her audience to the speaker’s side by playing with the audience’s emotions. Before pathos is used to move the audience emotionally, it is smart for the speaker to use ethos to build good credibility. With credibility, the speaker has the ability to make the audience trust him or her. That trust is beneficial to help the audience believe what the speaker is saying. Logos is another trait that a strong speaker must make use of to show intellect. It is the appeal to logic. Logic is needed to show the audience that the speaker knows his or her facts and can effectively back them up. Ethos, pathos, and logos are three vital aspects of a good speech. Elizabeth I uses all three appeals subtly throughout her speech, using pathos the most. The queen also uses rhetorical devices to emphasize her points. Through the use of amplification, asyndeton, and climax, Elizabeth I reassures and inspires her troops with her compelling speech.

Professor Freeman, in her lecture titled: “The Logic of a Campaign (or, How in the World Did We Win?)”, talks about “logistical” problems that the British Army faced. First and foremost was the simple problem of supply and demand; regarding both fighting men and basic supplies. England was an ocean away and America’s ports were not always welcoming. Second was the actual lay of the land. British forces were not accustomed to fighting over such a vastly spread out region, nor were the accustomed to guerilla style warfare (Freeman).

Patton was in charge of a fake army set up in southern France to be used as a diversion. He

Patrick Henry was a prominent lawyer, politician, and orator in colonial America, representing Hanover County, Virginia in the Second Virginia Convention and Virginia in the Second Continental Congress (history.org). He is most well known for his proposition to the convention concerning the institution of a standing army to defend Virginia, and his speech given in defense of said proposition wherein he boldly challenged the crown to “Give me liberty, or give me death” (historicstjohnschurch.org).

These three speeches The Declaration Independence, Patrick Henry, and “From Subjects to Citizens”, had basically the same interpretation. In Patrick Henry's speech he mainly was trying to convince the delegates to secede from Britain; moreover, to fight back against them. The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal and are entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." "From Subjects to Citizens", people are not always sure they have the power or resources they need to make decisions or to act. The government does not give everybody a chance to express their feeling about what's going on around them.

From a fiercely brave General, who strictly enforces customs, bravery, formalities, and success; to a General with a lighthearted-mood, down to earth attitude, a steadfast courage, and a integrity and decency to lead the nations of the world into battle; while both these legendary Generals fought on the same side, both General S. Patton and General D. Eisenhower were distinctly different Generals. This paper seeks to outline the differences and similarities between the two Generals by taking a close look at their lives, and the impacts they had on WWII.

The whole war had led up to this day, especially since the plans for the invasion were being made even as early as 1942 or 1943, after the Soviet Union requested help to relieve pressure on their military in Eastern Europe following the Battle of Stalingrad, where they and Romania lost over 250,000 men combined. The thoughts of a soldier who had been fighting all throughout World War II would have probably consisted of, one, wanted to go home already, but two, thinking that nothing could be worse than what they had already experienced. They knew in their minds that they were ready for this mission, and had the plans of the military backing up their claims of definite victory. A soldier would, of course, hold their personal doubts and fright, but when counted among many fellow troops willing to fight for the same cause as their own, they can’t help but feel the collective morale of their comrades and themselves. This personal morale was only boosted by the genius work of WWII’s commanders’ skills in speech. The day before the actual attack, General Eisenhower gave his men a motivational speech they’d never forget. An excerpt from the speech: “Soldiers, sailors, and airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force! You are about to embark upon the greatest crusade toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you.” Though General George Patton also gave his own speech that day, I won’t bore you with another quote (though Patton was far from a boring individual). Instead, you should now be able to reflect on how important morale was for the forces getting ready to siege Normandy. The Allied troops were physically and mentally prepared, while the Germans in Normandy, if anything, had lost morale as they believed there was nothing to do when stationed in that

I like how you put into words that a commander of the army usually has this big speech they say to their troops in order to hype them up for the battle ahead. I also agree that there were many differences between Richmond and Richard’s speeches. This assists in revealing the clear contrast in both men’s individual character traits. William Shakespeare pits the traditional golden-boy protagonist of the story, Richmond, against the deformed villainous antagonist, Richard. And while both speeches strive to motivate the soldiers as they plunge into battle, Shakespeare has a unique style of differentiating each leader’s motivational techniques.

This mission command analysis evaluates the battle of Team Desobry at the town of Noville, Belgium. These events took place 18-19 December 1944, and later impacted the battle fought at Bastogne during World War II. It is the goal of this review to discuss and analyze three mission command principles displayed during this battle: Create shared understanding, exercise disciplined initiative, and the acceptance of prudent risk. One of the main characters that took part in this story was the 20th Armored Infantry Battalion, 10th Armored Division. The commanding officer of this element was Major William R. Desobry. During the events of World War II, the German forces were trying to gain control of the Ardennes to cut off the allies’ supply lines in order to isolate British forces from the American troops. A pivotal task for German forces to attain this goal was to gain access and take control of the Belgian town of Bastogne. However, an important strategic stepping stone to get there was Noville, which is just seven kilometers northeast of Bastogne. Two main reasons made Noville such a critical location for the Germans: First, it had a junction of roads that were important for displacement of German forces to the West. Second, it provided an alternative road to access Bastogne from the north.1

A Comparison between Shakespeare's Agincourt Speech and Wilfred Owens Dulce Et Decorum Est This essay will scrutinize Shakespeare's 'Agincourt Speech' and Wilfred Owens 'Dulce Et Decorum Est'. Initially the essay will analyse elements of the poems context as well as the origin of the actual passage and how it is created by the influence on each writer's own experience. Additionally, the analysis will similarly focus on more intimate elements of each poem such as the attitude towards war at the time that they were written and how the author shows there own attitude and beliefs towards war (The Myth of War). Furthermore the essay will conclude by contextualising the language and structure of each