Battle of Santiago de Cuba in the Spanish-American War

Battle of Santiago de Cuba in the Spanish-American War The climatic naval battle of the Spanish-American War, the Battle of Santiago de Cuba resulted in a decisive victory for the US Navy and the complete destruction of the Spanish squadron. Anchored in Santiago harbor in southern Cuba, Spanish Admiral Pascual Cerveras six ships found themselves blockaded by the US Navy in the late spring of 1898. With the advance of American forces ashore, Cerveras position became untenable and on July 3 he attempted to escape with his squadron. Cervera was soon intercepted by American battleships and cruisers under Rear Admiral William T. Sampson and Commodore William S. Schley. In a running battle, the superior American firepower reduced Cerveras ships to burning wrecks. The loss of Cerveras squadron effectively cut off Spanish forces in Cuba. Situation Prior to July 3 Following sinking of USS Maine and the outbreak of war between Spain and the United States on April 25, 1898, the Spanish government dispatched a fleet under Admiral Pascual Cervera to defend Cuba. Though Cervera was against such a move, preferring to engage the Americans near the Canary Islands, he obeyed and after evading the US Navy arrived at Santiago de Cuba in late May. On May 29, Cerveras fleet was spotted in the harbor by Commodore Winfield S. Schleys Flying Squadron. Two days later, Rear Admiral William T. Sampson arrived with the US North Atlantic Squadron and after taking overall command began a blockade of the harbor. Rear Admiral William T. Sampson, USN. US Naval History and Heritage Command Commanders Fleets US North Atlantic Squadron - Rear Admiral William T. Sampson Armored Cruiser USS New York (flagship)Battleship USS Iowa (BB-4)Battleship USS Indiana (BB-1)Battleship USS Oregon (BB-3)Armed Yacht Gloucester US Flying Squadron - Commodore Winfield Scott Schley Armored Cruiser USS Brooklyn (flagship)Battleship USS TexasBattleship USS Massachusetts (BB-2)Armed Yacht USS Vixen Spanish Caribbean Squadron - Admiral Pascual Cervera Armored Cruiser Infanta Maria Teresa (flagship)Armored Cruiser Almirante OquendoArmored Cruiser VizcayaArmored Cruiser Cristobal ColonTorpedo Boat Destroyer PlutonTorpedo Boat Destroyer Furor Cervera Decides to Break Out While at anchor in Santiago, Cerveras fleet was protected by the heavy guns of the harbor defenses. In June, his situation became more tenuous following the landing of American troops up the coast at Guantnamo Bay. As the days passed, Cervera waited for inclement weather to scatter the blockade so that he could escape the harbor. Following the American victories at El Caney and San Juan Hill on July 1, the admiral concluded that he would have to fight his way out before the city fell. He decided to wait until 9:00 AM on Sunday July 3, hoping to catch the American fleet while it conducting church services (Map). Spanish Navy armored cruisers Cristà ³bal Colà ³n (left) and Vizcaya. US Naval History and Heritage Command The Fleets Meet On the morning of July 3, as Cervera was preparing to break out, Adm. Sampson pulled his flagship, the armored cruiser USS New York, out of line to meet with ground commanders at Siboney leaving Schley in command. The blockade was further weakened by the departure of the battleship USS Massachusetts which had retired to coal. Emerging from Santiago Bay at 9:45, Cerveras four armored cruisers steered southwest, while his two torpedo boats turned southeast. Aboard the armored cruiser USS Brooklyn, Schley signaled the four battleships still on the blockade to intercept. A Running Fight Cervera began the fight from his flagship, Infanta Maria Teresa, by opening fire on the approaching Brooklyn. Schley led the American fleet towards the enemy with the battleships Texas, Indiana, Iowa, and Oregon in line behind. As the Spaniards steamed by, Iowa hit Maria Teresa with two 12 shells. Not wishing to expose his fleet to fire from the entire American line, Cervera turned his flagship to cover their withdrawal and directly engaged Brooklyn. Taken under heavy fire by Schleys ship, Maria Teresa began to burn and Cervera ordered it run aground. The remainder of Cerveras fleet raced for open water but was slowed by inferior coal and fouled bottoms. As the American battleships bore down, Iowa opened fire on Almirante Oquendo, ultimately causing a boiler explosion that forced the crew to scuttle the ship. The two Spanish torpedo boats, Furor and Pluton, were put out of action by fire from Iowa, Indiana, and the returning New York, with one sinking and the other running aground before exploding. End of Vizcaya At the head of the line, Brooklyn engaged the armored cruiser Vizcaya in an hour-long duel at approximately 1,200 yards. Despite firing over three hundred rounds, Vizcaya failed to inflict significant damage on its adversary. Subsequent studies have suggested that as much as eighty-five percent of the Spanish ammunition used during the battle may have been defective. In response, Brooklyn bludgeoned Vizcaya and was joined by Texas. Moving closer, Brooklyn struck Vizcaya with an 8 shell that caused an explosion setting the ship on fire. Turning for shore, Vizcaya ran aground where the ship continued to burn. Oregon Runs Down Cristobal Colon After more than an hours fighting, Schleys fleet had destroyed all but one of Cerveras ships. The survivor, the new armored cruiser Cristobal Colon, continued fleeing along the coast. Recently purchased, the Spanish Navy did not have time to install the ships primary armament of 10 guns before sailing. Slowed due to engine trouble, Brooklyn was unable to catch the retreating cruiser. This allowed the battleship Oregon, which had recently completed a remarkable voyage from San Francisco in the wars early days, to move forward. Following an hour-long chase Oregon opened fire and forced Colon to run aground. USS Oregon (BB-3). US Naval History and Heritage Command Aftermath The Battle of Santiago de Cuba marked the end of large-scale naval operations in the Spanish-American War. In course of the fighting, Sampson and Schleys fleet lost a miraculous 1 killed (Yeoman George H. Ellis, USS Brooklyn) and 10 wounded. Cervera lost all six of his ships, as well as 323 killed and 151 wounded. In addition, approximately 70 officers, including the admiral, and 1,500 men were taken prisoner. With the Spanish Navy unwilling to risk any additional ships in Cuban waters, the islands garrison was effectively cut off, ultimately dooming them to surrender.

Essay on Alfred Hitchcocks Rear WindowEssay Writing Service

Essay on Alfred Hitchcocks Rear WindowEssay Writing Service Essay on Alfred Hitchcocks Rear Window Essay on Alfred Hitchcocks Rear WindowWhile analyzing the film â€Å"Rear Window† I found several authors with opposing opinions about it. My goal in this paper is to set forth different points of view and make my own original evaluation of this movie.To achieve this goal, I have organized my paper into three main sections. The first section summarizes the plot of the movie and the second one gives the evaluation of secondary sources and analysis of a rhetorical issue about â€Å"Rear Window†. I conclude with a third section that summarizes all previous statements.THE PLOT OF THE MOVIE.According to IMDb.com, as of April 2014, â€Å"Rear Window† directed by Alfred Hitchcock is the 31st highest-rated movie on Internet Movie Database, with an IMDb rating of 8.6/10. It is a thriller based on Cornell Woolrichs 1942 short story It Had to Be Murder.The story of the film â€Å"Rear Window† is next. Professional photographer L.B. Jeff Jefferies (James Stewart) is f orced permanently to sit in one of the apartments in Greenwich Village. His leg is in plaster from foot to hip after breaking. He is visited by a nurse Stella (Thelma Ritter), girlfriend-model Lisa Fremont (Grace Kelly) and occasionally by his friend, a police officer. His rear window looks out onto a small courtyard and some other apartments. He tries to while away the time and watches his neighbors, who keep their windows open. The tenants are: a newly married couple; lonely girl ballerina; composer, living in the attic; a lonely middle-aged woman on the ground floor; an old couple with a dog, which they descend from their floor to walk (and then re-raise) on the special elevator; a large middle-aged man Lars Thorwald, caring for his sick wife.Jefferies has nothing better to do, so he observes the lives of neighbors in the yard. As a result of these observations, he suddenly comes to the conclusion that a woman had been killed in one of the apartments. Jeff hears a scream Dont! an d a sound of breaking glass. After that he notices strange behavior of Thorwald. Jeff notices that Thorwalds wife is gone and sees Thorwald cleaning a large knife and handsaw. Later, Thorwald ties a large trunk with heavy rope and has moving men haul it away.  At first no one believes Jeff, but gradually he manages to convince Lisa and Stella. His friend, who is a police officer, doesnt believe him until almost the very end. As a result of negligence of characters, a suspected person understands that he has being watched, and comes to Jeff in one of the final scenes of the movie. During the fight Jeff falls out of the window and breaks his second leg. Thorwald was caught by the police.THE ANALYSIS OF THE FILM.One film critic in his film review stated that â€Å"this film exposes many facets of the loneliness of city life and it tacitly demonstrates the impulse of morbid curiosity† (Crowther, Rear Window (1954)).John Belton on the contrary states that â€Å"like many of the best works of classical Hollywood cinema Rear Window is a deceptively obvious film†¦it presents the best that Hollywood has to offer its audiences in the tumultuous 1950s† (1).I tend to agree with Sidney Gottlieb, who states that â€Å"Rear Window is a film about the pleasures and the dangers of the look. If it were only about morbid curiosity, the film itself would be just a curiosity, not the impressively shrewd and powerful film that it is† (Gottlieb).Analyzing characters of the movie â€Å"Rare Window†, we can come to the following idea. We get deeply involved into the story. Hitchcock gets us to relate to the people on screen. Thorwald seems to be the negative character in this movie, because he obviously has killed his wife. But we dont get to know this character well and we do not associate ourselves with him. Instead, we identify with Jeff. We see the world pictured in the movie through this character. He is spying on his neighbors. He is doing some thing hes not supposed to do, he is essentially amoral and takes liberties with other peoples privacy. That makes him guilty as well. And this guilt spreads to us, the viewers.But on the other hand, this film imaginatively and vividly pictures our daily life of continuously looking at things and being looked at. Through looking we analyze situation and the world around us; we establish some social connections and evaluate people; we obtain information through looking. Person cannot help but look. That is our nature, a nature of human being. So all this spying can be justified at some point.I would like to support this idea by quoting Sydney Gotlieb:We have a sense that to gain knowledge, of course we open our eyes, but we also have an implicit faith that by looking at people, we establish a sympathetic connection; we become more fully human, more fully social and sociable, by looking. That’s one of our hopes; it’s the conventional wisdom, you might say, about looking, and it’s both dramatized and also undermined in â€Å"Rear Window†.The film also shows us that this nature of constantly looking sometimes does more harm than good. It can punish us and keep away from any social connection; sometimes it plays a cruel joke with us. Such thing happened to the main character – Jeff. At the same time, even though Jeff brought some danger on himself, his nature of looking become social useful. Even this, at first glance, amoral behavior did some good for the society. Without Jeff, spying on his neighbors, police would never found out about the crime and would never catch the murderer.Hitchcock’s Rear Window demonstrates how irresistible people can be to a cinema of attractions. Sometimes we cannot resist this. We do not control ourselves, when it comes to some things, which hold our attention and interest. Jeff yields to temptation as well.Following the point stated above, it is reasonable to point out the statement of Sydney Gotlieb. He says that â€Å"one of the most provocative points about Rear Window is that the excitement and interest generated by the visual spectacles can sometimes be very deceptive. Watching can be distracting as well as engaging. All this is conveyed very powerfully and precisely in a little film within the film†.If we try to psychoanalyze the main character, we may come to a conclusion that Jeff is that kind of person, who prefers to be estranged. That brings the whole theory of looking in Hitchcock’s movie to some new dimension. The main character chooses to simply watch without getting involved. Just like he prefers not to get married or be involved in serious relationships. Even his occupation as a photographer tells us that he is better walking around the world freely with no limitations. All he wants is to observe. Maybe he is afraid of participation. The movie, in its own way, condemns such attitude to life. It shows us that no matter how hard you try to sta y aside of those entire things which are happening around you, you will never be able to do that forever. At some point you will be have to get involved. Just like the main character was have to get involved, when he witnessed a crime. This conception of non-interference cannot save you from being hurt. You may think:â€Å"what kind of harmcan make a simple looking?† The film shows us that kind of harm. That conception figuratively comes to an apartment of Jeff and throws him out of the window. Someone will construe this scene as a penalty for this looking nature of a human, but other people may see something deeper in it. This scene may refer us to the thought that simply looking is not enough. You whether participate and get involved or go away without peeping.CONCLUSION.From examining different points of view concerning the value of Alfred Hitchcocks Rear Window, I can say that there is no common opinion. To my mind this movie is significant because it shows human’s nature of constant looking and our irresistance to it. It raises the issue of moral lines and participation in social life. It brings us to the idea that it is very important to keep balance between privacy of others and social responsibility.

Responses to classmember Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Responses to classmember - Assignment Example It is also surprising as to how indifferent most people are on how to conduct an Internet search. Without the tips laid down in this Chapter on how to find online information, most of us would still be conducting Internet searches incorrectly. Therefore, these tips help in efficiently conducting Internet searches and finding valuable information that would be important in writing a research paper. Indeed this Chapter explains how an effective research needs to be supported by reliable information; Bovee and Thill have laid out a process on how to get better results when searching for information. This informative Chapter describes the most effective way to conduct a research as well as explains how to evaluate the credibility of any source of information. An analytical report is important for analyzing, understanding or explaining a problem or opportunity and drawing conclusions from the research. Therefore planning for an analytical report is crucial since it minimizes the chances of wasting time and improves the results of the research. Analytical reports can be used to assess the risks, opportunities and the decisions and actions that are required to be undertaken. By so doing through analytical reports, one can be able to analyze a risk or opportunity and come up with the decisions that will be of benefit to the organization. A research has to contain information that is collected first hand even though regrettably most research papers nowadays only contain secondary information. I concur with you that one of the best ways to collect primary information is through interviewing the appropriate parties. Interviews offer the researcher the opportunity to interact with the interested party and acquire information that is directly related to the research being conducted. This is particularly important since most secondary information that can be obtained does not relate to the topic of research and is therefore not of benefit.