Life in the Trenches Essay Example for Free

Life in the Trenches Essay World War One, also known as the Great War, was a war that would change all wars. Never in the history of humanity had there been a war fought in such a manor, and it would change the way all wars that followed it were fought. World War I was expected to be a relatively short war, as those in the past had been, and a war of great battles and movement. However WWI was typified by its lack of movement, years of stalemates and great battles that turned out to be massive slaughters where hundreds of thousands of men died for a very small gain in territory. The most important aspect of WWI that made it so unique was its use of a new tactic of digging a series of connecting trenches that carved up the landscape of the Western and Eastern fronts. This use of trenches by both the Allies and the Germans was one of the primary reasons that WWI lasted as long as it did. Life in the trenches was a horrifying experience for any man who served in the Great War. The terrible conditions in the trenches would only be fully known by the public after the war was over in late 1918. The armies of the Allies had strict rules against the public gaining knowledge of the details of the war and used many methods to prevent them knowing the truth. After the Battle of the Marne in September 1914, the German army was forced to retreat. They had failed in their objective to force France into and early surrender and rather than give up the land that they had gained they dug into the ground to secure their position and protect themselves from the Allie fire. Because the Germans were at an advantage of being able to fire at the Allies from below ground level because of this the Allies could not break the German trench line. It was apparent that the Germans would not be removed the Allies followed the German example and dug their own trenches. It was this event that halted movement on both sides and changed the style of warfare forever. Trenches soon stretched across the countryside and spread from the North Sea to Switzerland. Trench life soon became as mentally and physically taxing on soldiers as the actual fighting element of the war. Disease, rats, lice, and boredom became a part of daily life for a soldier in the trenches. After the war was over there were many accounts from soldiers of the appalling conditions and the amount of death that occurred in the trenches. It was estimated that up to  one third of Allied casualties on the Western Front were actually sustained in the trenches . Aside from injuries caused by the enemy, disease accounted for a large amount of that total. Many accounts from soldiers of their time spent in the trenches are dominated by an emphasis on the amount of mud. Living in the trenches soldiers were rarely clean and when they were they did not stay that way for very long. Because of the lack of sanitary conditions in the trenches men suffered from many pests such as rats and frogs as well as more harmful things like lice and diseases like trench foot and shell shock. The rats in the trenches became a problem for the soldiers because there was no way to avoid them or get rid of them. A single pair of rats could produce almost 900 offspring in a year so the infestation continued throughout the war. Rats in the trenches were rumoured to have grown as large as cats on occasion, from eating or stealing scraps and feeding off the corpses of dead soldiers. Because the rats became so fearless the men in the trenches came to loathe them and often spent free time killing them and setting traps . Yet another annoying pest was the lice that continually plagued the men. Soldiers could spend up to an hour a day burning the lice off their bodies and clothes in an attempt to rid themselves of the pests; but the effort was all in vain because they would only be re-infested the next day. Occasionally the men were sent to clean themselves in large baths while their clothes were being put through delousing machines. Unfortunately, this rarely worked; a fair proportion of the eggs remained in the clothes and within two or three hours of the clothes being put on again a mans body heat had hatched them out. Because of the continuously muddy conditions the men often walked around in mud and water sometimes covering as far up as their knees or waists. During the early part of the war over 20,000 men were treated for a condition that became known as trench foot. This was an infection of the feet caused by cold, wet and unsanitary conditions. Without being able to remove wet socks or boots the feet would gradually go numb and the skin would turn red or blue. If untreated, trench foot could turn gangrenous and result in  amputation. The only remedy for trench foot was for the soldiers to dry their feet and change their socks several times a day. By the end of 1915 British soldiers in the trenches had to have three pairs of socks with them and were under orders to change their socks at least twice a day. As well as drying their feet, soldiers were told to cover their feet with grease made from whale oil. The Allies needed to make sure that there would be no additional factors that would affect the morale at home; news of the conditions that the soldiers were forced to live in and the continuing stalemates would surely do that. If confidence in the war effort was diminished and the truth about the trenches was known there would be fewer new recruits and the Allies would be challenged to keep up with the Germans numbers. Most soldiers during the war chose to conceal the horrors of the trench warfare not wishing to expose their families to it. But those who wished to confide in family members and try to share with them their experiences were prevented from doing so by new laws that were put into place. The House of Commons passed the Defence of the Realm Act on August 8th 1914 without debate . The Act gave the government executive power to suppress criticism, imprison without trial and commandeer economic resources for the war effort. As a result all letters that the men wrote were read and censored by the junior officers. Although soldiers were encouraged to write letters to friends and family, the contents of the letters were monitored strictly by the junior officers in accordance with the new laws guidelines. Anything that disclosed information about military action would be removed to ensure that the Allies plans could not get to the Germans. The junior officers were also instructed to remove anything from the letters that discussed the conditions of the trenches or insinuated that the soldiers did not have faith in the actions that were being taken by the army. The members of parliament believed that if family members were to receive letters of that nature the morale in Britain would be effected which would affect the war effort all together. Britain and France also had problems deciding what to do about journalists who were reporting the war. Originally under the Defence of the Realm Act Britain put strict limitations on all reporters often preventing their  articles from making it back to Britain from France. After complaints from the USA on how the British government was treating the situation a cabinet meeting was held to change the policy and to allow selected journalists to report the war. The British government appointed five men to be accredited war correspondents in January of 1915. These men were to remain on the Western Front but to be permitted to do so these journalists had to accept government control over what they wrote. As a result of government interference even the disastrous first day of the Battle of the Somme was reported as a victory. Although some defended their actions saying that they were attempting to spare the feelings of men and women, who, have sons and husbands fighting in France; most of the journalists admitted that they were deeply ashamed of what they had written. After the war most of the accredited war correspondents were offered knighthoods by George V. Some agreed to accept the offer but others like Hamilton Fyfe refused seeing the knighthood as a bribe to keep quiet about the inefficiency and corruption he had witnessed during the war. Fyfe would later become a member of the Union of Democratic Control after the war, and would speak out as a strong critic of the Versailles Peace Treaty . There were a few other instances of the British government preventing criticism of the war from being published. In 1916 the Clyde Workers Committee journal, called The Worker, was brought to court under the Defence of the Realm Act for an article that criticized the war. The two editors of the journal were found guilty and sent to prison, one for six months and the other for a year . Critical novels that were written during the war were prevented from being published or banned if they did make it to publication. A.T. Fitzroys Despised and Rejected, about conscientious objectors during WWI, was published in April 1918. A thousand copies were sold before the book was banned and the publisher prosecuted under the Defence of the Realm Act. Another novel, What Not: A Prophetic Comedy by Rose Macaulay, which ridiculed wartime bureaucracy, was prevented from being published near the end of 1918. Instead it was not published until after the Armistice. So although the conditions for the men who fought in the First World War were horrific, the public did not realize the sacrifices that had been made for their freedom on a daily basis. The suppression of the truth by the British government is a controversial topic that is still debated today. Whether or not the British were justified in preventing the public from knowing the truth it was inevitably disclosed after the wars conclusion. The images seen and the conditions endured plagued on many mens minds after the war was over. The Great War, a war that was to be one of heroic battles and great movement, turned into a war remembered for its lack of movement, its number of casualties and the conditions that had to be endured. World War One changed the way all wars after it were fought, but not for the better.

Nikola Tesla Essays -- Tesla Coil Science Electricity Electron

"Nikola Tesla is the world's greatest inventor, not only at present but in all history...His basic as well as revolutionary discoveries, for sheer audacity, have no equal in the annals of the intellectual world." (Hugo Gernsback, science editor and publisher.) Father of Alternating Current and AC induction motors, Nikola Tesla is known best for the high voltage generator that bears his name- the Tesla Coil. But this limited recognition hardly does justice to his legacy as an inventor. His name should be placed besides Thomas Edison, perhaps his biggest rival, for his contributions to electronics. But while electromagnetism was Tesla's primary focus during his life, the scope of his work and ideas were not so limited. He had many strange inventions and discoveries, many of which where not realized because of his opponents or for personal reasons. Others, as we will see, were simply too far-fetched or ambitious. But much of that story's been told before, just as it has been for countless other great scientists and inventors. Here I hope to focus more on the nature of the man that gives birth to the idea of a global night-light or a mail tube beneath the Atlantic, and the other radical ideas that such a mind could create. It's difficult to say why some of the more abnormal, and perhaps more interesting, details of history are forgotten or conveniently left out. Perhaps for simplicity, or perhaps to make history look more noble and admirable. Personally, I believe it's similar to people trying to forget their mistakes and the times they were "less than bright," in order to create an exaggerated image of themselves. Similarly, history tries to forget its more embarrassing moments, so that it may create a more more noble... ...If she needed me, nothing else mattered. As long as I had her, there was a purpose in my life. Then one night as I was lying in my bed in the dark, solving problems, as usual, she flew in through the open window and stood on my desk. I knew she wanted me; she wanted to tell me something important so I got up and went to her. As I looked at her I knew she wanted to tell me- she was dying. And then, as I got her message, there came a light from her eyes- powerful beams of light...Yes, it was a real light, a powerful, dazzling, blinding light, a light more intense than I had ever produced by the most powerful lamps in my laboratory. When that pigeon died, something went out of my life.Up to that time I knew with a certainty that I would complete my work, no matter how ambitious my program, but when that something went out of my life I knew my life's work was finished."

Change Management Model Paper Essay

In order to evaluate organizational change, it is crucial to understand the models of organizational change. Change models can reveal the compelling forces of change, what will happen, and how it will happen. It is sometimes difficult to find a model that best fits the nature of the organization. However, the use of any change model is beneficial because it offers a guideline to follow and predict the presumed results of the change initiative (Mento, Jones, & Dirndorfer, 2002). While there are many change management models, a few of the well-known models are: Lewin’s change management model and Bridge’s transition model. This paper will discuss Lewin’s change management model and Bridge’s transition model. Within each change model, it will address the role of the leader in the change initiative, overcoming resistance to change, and communication process of both models. It would also assess the strengths and weaknesses of each model. Lewin’s Change Management Model According to Kurt Lewin, successful change in any organization should follow three steps: unfreezing, changing, and refreezing. Unfreezing involves overcoming the pressures of individual resistance and group conformity. Changing or movement happens when the change is initiated and the organization is getting ready to move into a transition stage. Refreezing occurs after change has been accepted and the organization can operate under the new changes (Robbins & Judge, 2009). Lewin’s model identified that most people prefer to function within their comfort zones. Most people like the comfort, sense of identity, and control from the environment that they are familiar with. In this model, the leader’s role is to remove the resistance of change through motivation. One  way to deal with the resistance is to use positive incentives to encourage employees to accept the change. For example, management can increase the pay for those who accept the change. Management can also address the concerns regarding the need for change (Robbins & Judge, 2009). It is important to communicate directly with the employees who are most affected by the change. Leaders move through the change process by promoting effective communications and empowering people to embrace the change. Employees who are not involved with planning the change could lead to increased resistance and decreased motivation. Zigarmi & Witt (2007) states that change are successfully implemented when people have an opportunity to express their concerns and influence how the change is implemented (p. 17). Lewin’s change model is a simple and easy to understand framework for managing change in an organization. Most companies prefer to use this model to enact major changes. However, it takes considerable time to put into practice. This model can be compared to overcoming bad habits by changing them with new or better habits. The organization has to be determined and dedicated to make the change and do what is necessary despite obstacles involved in the process (Brisson-Banks, 2010). Bridge’s Three-Phase Transition Model For many logical reasons, people are often uncomfortable with change. This could lead them to resist and oppose change initiatives that may come their way. It is important to understand how people feel as change happens so that leaders can guide them through the process. Bridge’s transition model can help organizations understand how people feel during the change process so that they can guide their employees to support and accept the change. The model emphasizes three stages of transition that people go through when they encounter change. These are: ending, neutral zone, and new beginning. In the ending stage, people must let go of the past before they can embrace the new. This is the initial stage of transition that people go through when presented with change. It is often marked with resistance because people are being forced to let go of something they are comfortable with. As a leader, it is important to accept the employee’s resistance and be able to  understand their emotions. Give them time to accept the change and let go. Leaders should acknowledge the loss and a variety of reactions and be able to give people instructions on how to move on to the next stage (Brisson-Banks, 2009). When communicating with employees, leaders must listen empathetically and communicate honestly about what is going to happen. Leaders should explain to employees that their knowledge and experience would apply once the change i s implemented. It is also important to assure them that resources would be provided so that they can work effectively in the new environment (Mind Tools, 2014). In the neutral zone, people begin to explore their comfort with the new change. Individuals in this stage may feel disoriented with decreasing motivation and increasing anxiety and uncertainty. Employees may have increased workload as they transition into the new system and new ways of working. They might resent the new change initiative; have low morale and productivity; be anxious about their role or status in the company; and be skeptical about the change initiative (Mind Tools, 2014). This stage is a terrific time to inspire people to try new ways of thinking and working. As people go through this neutral period, a leader’s guidance is important in this stage. People may feel lost and it is the leader’s role to provide them with a solid sense of direction. They should encourage employees to talk about their feelings and remind them of the team goals (Mento et al., 2002). In order to overcome resistance to change, leaders can involve people in designing the new change initiative. They can create short-term structures and lead them to innovate. Leaders must explain the neutral zone and validate feelings. They must be optimistic about the change and share information as often as possible. Short term goals are important at this stage so that employees can experience some quick wins to increase their enthusiasm (Mind Tools, 2014). When communicating with employees, allow them to voice their concerns regarding the change. Leaders should remain optimistic and be able to admit when they do not have an answer for people’s concerns. Leaders must meet with their team frequently to provide them with feedback on how they are performing. They must be able to do what they can to boost morale and continue to remind people of how they can contribute to the success of the change (Washington University, n.d.). In the new beginning stage, people begin to embrace the new change (Washington University, n.d.). Employees  develop the skills they need to function effectively in the new way and is beginning to see quick wins from their efforts. At this stage, people are likely to experience openness to learning, positive attitude, increased productivity, high energy, and renewed commitment to the group or their new role (Mind Tools, 2014). As employees embrace the new change, it is necessary for leaders to help them maintain it. Leaders can picture the future and plan the next steps. While they plan the long-term objectives of the organization, they must take the time to celebrate the change they’ve all been through and reward their team for all their hard work. Leaders must communicate a picture of how the new organization will look and feel. Communicate a step by step understanding of how the organization will change and remember to avoid complacency so that people would not revert back to previous stages (Mind Tools, 2014). This model is beneficial in understanding how people feel as they are guided through the change process. It also clarifies the psychological effect of the change. However, it is not a substitute for other change management models such as Lewin’s change management model. Bridge’s model must be used along with other change management models (Brisson-Banks, 2009). Conclusion Change management is a challenging process to carry out and manage for any organization. With so many change management models, it is not always easy to find one that fits the organization’s nature. However, the use of change models is fundamental in the successful implementation of the change processes in organizations. This paper examined Lewin’s change management model and Bridge’s three phase transition model. It discussed the leader’s role in each model, how to overcome resistance, and their communication process. It also assessed the advantages and disadvantages of using each model. Lewin and Bridge’s models have significant commonalities between them. These models can be used as a guide to assist organizations through the world of constant changes. There is no definite model that exists for each organization, but each model has helpful ways of managing change that can be customized according the organization (Brisson-Banks, 2009). References Brisson-Banks, C. V. (2010). Managing change and transitions: a comparison of different models and their commonalities. Library Management, 31, 241-252. doi:10.1108/01435121011046317 Mind Tools. (n.d.). Bridges’ transition model – Change management tools from MindTools.com. Retrieved from http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/bridges-transition-model.htm Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. (2009). Organizational behavior (13th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Washington University. (n.d.). Three phases of transition – William Bridges. Retrieved from http://www.washington.edu/research/rapid/resources/changeModels/mc_three_phases.pdf Zigarmi, P., & Witt, D. (2007). Leading Change. Retrieved from http://www.kenblanchard.com/img/pub/leading_change_handout.pdf

Basic Section Township and Range Charts