the warlords essays

the warlords essays In his book, The Warlords, AJP Taylor defines a warlord as "...a man of great, of unique, power dominating both the military and civil affairs of his country; a dictator whose power was unlimited and who made all vital decisions" (Taylor 16). Taylor is trying to portray Joseph Stalin, Denito Mussolini, Adolf Hilter, Winston Churchill, and President Roosevelt as warlords by his definition. He uses many examples of events during World War II that show how these men are dictators and can dominate military powers. I believe that the author is fairly successful in showing that these men are warlords; however, there are several instances where Taylor seems to contradict himself. First, his definition says a warlord must be a man of great power and control his military. In the case of Mussolini, Taylor tells how he was noted as being a "lazy man" and how he lied about the actual size of his army. Taylor also talks about how Mussolini only consisted of impression and how without Hitler he would have never become anything after his resignation of commander- in- chief. Also, Winston Churchill and President Roosevelt were not dictators of their countries and therefore only fit half of the author's definition. Taylor does a good job in general of proving that these five men are warlords, however he leaves a few loopholes for others to argue his theories. No one disputes that these men are leaders in their own way, but they do not all fit the authors exact definition of a warlord. This book was well written and well organized. By reading this book you not only learn about the lives and politics of these five men, but you also learn a lot about many different events in World War II. I feel like I came away from this book knowing much more than I did when I began reading it. It was easy to read and, as I already stated, very inte ...

In Spoken French, the Ne in Negatives May Be Dropped

In Spoken French, the Ne in Negatives May Be Dropped French negation can be tricky. Normally, to make a statement negative you need to surround the conjugated verb with the formal French negative adverb  ne...pas. However, if youve ever watched French movies or television, or chatted with native speakers, you have almost certainly heard pas (or another negative adverb) used without ne, because this is a typical construction, characteristic of informal and familiar French. Although  the full express  (ne...pas)  is nearly always written out, the ne  is often dropped in spoken French. But  you should be able to construct a sentence, in most cases, using the full ne...pas  that means the same thing.  Pas  without  ne can be used to negate adjectives, adverbs, nouns, pronouns, and verbs.   Purists will tell you that using pas without ne  is wrong (and they tell me I shouldnt teach it), but the reality is that this is how the French speak now.  So if your goal is to sound more French, thats how you should speak, too. Informal Negative Statements Without Ne Je ne sais pas. Je sais pas.  Or even:  Jsais pas,  Sais pas,  and  Chais pas (pronounced  Shai pah). (I dont know.)  Il ne va pas venir. Il va pas venir. (He isnt going to come.)Elle nest pas encore arrivà ©e. Elle est pas encore arrivà ©e. (She hasnt arrived yet.)Ne bouge pas  ! Bouge pas  ! (Dont move!)Il ne faut pas faire à §a  ! Il faut pas faire à §a. (You shouldnt do that!Note: Its not just  ne...pas  constructions where speakers drop the ne; they do as well with all the other negative structures.Je nai plus dargent Jai plus dargent. (I dont have any more money.)Nous ne le voyons jamais Nous le voyons jamais. (We never see him.)Je nai aucune idà ©e Jai aucune idà ©e. (I have no idea.)Je nen sais rien Jen sais rien. (I dont know anything about it.)