A new perspective on the Battle of Monmouth from the first-person accounts of those who took part in the battle. After spending a difficult winter at Valley Forge, George Washington led the Continental Army in pursuit of the British Army moving from Philadelphia to New York City. On June 28, 1778, the army caught up with the British and defeated them at Monmouth Court House. The principal figure in the battle is George Washington. His planning, his orders, and his actions on the battlefield dominate the story. After the first rebuff of his advance guard under Charles Lee, it is Washington who matched each movement of the enemy with decisive actions of his own. In doing so he attained a tactical victory on the battlefield that had major strategic implications. Because of his leadership, and the actions of his army, both he and the Continental Army gained renewed respect from Congress, the American people, and the enemy. Washington’s success solidified his position as the face of the Revolutionary effort. While the Congress was often ineffectual or even nonexistent, Washington and his army became the symbol of the Revolution. Modern authors have contributed greatly to our knowledge of the battle of Monmouth but in doing so have tried to interpret or analyze it through our modern point of view, losing sight of what happened, disregarding the perceptions, opinions, and conclusions of the people who took part in the battle and its aftermath. This book is different in that it uses only first-person accounts to reach conclusions or render judgments. In addition to changing the perceptions of the victory of the Continental Army, modern historians have distorted the story further through the court martial of Charles Lee in the aftermath of the battle, giving it undue importance.

Volume 7, Perceptions Are Reality: Historical Case Studies of Information Operations in Large-Scale Combat Operations, is a collection of ten historical case studies from World War II through the recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Ukraine. The eleventh and final chapter looks forward and explores the implications of the future information environment across the range of military operations during both competition and conflict. The case studies illustrate how militaries and subnational elements use information to gain a position of relative advantage during large-scale combat. The intent of this volume is to employ history to stimulate discussion and analysis of the implications of information operations in future LSCO by exploring past actions, recognizing and understanding successes and failures, and offering some lessons learned from each author's perspective.

At seven o'clock in the morning on February 21, 1916, the ground in northern France began to shake. For the next ten hours, twelve hundred German guns showered shells on a salient in French lines. The massive weight of explosives collapsed dugouts, obliterated trenches, severed communication wires, and drove men mad. As the barrage lifted, German troops moved forward, darting from shell crater to shell crater. The battle of Verdun had begun. In Verdun, historian Paul Jankowski provides the definitive account of the iconic battle of World War I. A leading expert on the French past, Jankowski combines the best of traditional military history-its emphasis on leaders, plans, technology, and the contingency of combat-with the newer social and cultural approach, stressing the soldier's experience, the institutional structures of the military, and the impact of war on national memory. Unusually, this book draws on deep research in French and German archives; this mastery of sources in both languages gives Verdun unprecedented authority and scope. In many ways, Jankowski writes, the battle represents a conundrum. It has an almost unique status among the battles of the Great War; and yet, he argues, it was not decisive, sparked no political changes, and was not even the bloodiest episode of the conflict. It is said that Verdun made France, he writes; but the question should be, What did France make of Verdun? Over time, it proved to be the last great victory of French arms, standing on their own. And, for France and Germany, the battle would symbolize the terror of industrialized warfare, "a technocratic Moloch devouring its children," where no advance or retreat was possible, yet national resources poured in ceaselessly, perpetuating slaughter indefinitely.

The Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars affected millions of people's lives across Europe and beyond. Yet the extent to which the constant warfare of the period 1792-1815 shaped everyday experience has been little studied. This volume of essays discusses the formative experience of these wars for men and women, as soldiers, citizens and civilians.

This paper focuses on the formulation of doctrine since World War II. In no comparable period in history have the dimensions of the battlefield been so altered by rapid technological changes. The need for the tactical doctrines of the Army to remain correspondingly abreast of these changes is thus more pressing than ever before. Future conflicts are not likely to develop in the leisurely fashions of the past where tactical doctrines could be refined on the battlefield itself. It is, therefore, imperative that we apprehend future problems with as much accuracy as possible. One means of doing so is to pay particular attention to the business of how the Army's doctrine has developed historically, with a view to improving methods of future development.

The Battle of Stalingrad was not only the psychological turning point of World War II: it also changed the face of modern warfare. From Antony Beevor, the internationally bestselling author of D-Day and The Battle of Arnhem. In August 1942, Hitler's huge Sixth Army reached the city that bore Stalin's name. In the five-month siege that followed, the Russians fought to hold Stalingrad at any cost; then, in an astonishing reversal, encircled and trapped their Nazi enemy. This battle for the ruins of a city cost more than a million lives. Stalingrad conveys the experience of soldiers on both sides, fighting in inhuman conditions, and of civilians trapped on an urban battlefield. Antony Beevor has itnerviewed survivors and discovered completely new material in a wide range of German and Soviet archives, including prisoner interrogations and reports of desertions and executions. As a story of cruelty, courage, and human suffering, Stalingrad is unprecedented and unforgettable. Historians and reviewers worldwide have hailed Antony Beevor's magisterial Stalingrad as the definitive account of World War II's most harrowing battle.

How do people decide which country came out ahead in a war or a crisis? Why, for instance, was the Mayaguez Incident in May 1975--where 41 U.S. soldiers were killed and dozens more wounded in a botched hostage rescue mission--perceived as a triumph and the 1992-94 U.S. humanitarian intervention in Somalia, which saved thousands of lives, viewed as a disaster? In Failing to Win, Dominic Johnson and Dominic Tierney dissect the psychological factors that predispose leaders, media, and the public to perceive outcomes as victories or defeats--often creating wide gaps between perceptions and reality. To make their case, Johnson and Tierney employ two frameworks: "Scorekeeping," which focuses on actual material gains and losses; and "Match-fixing," where evaluations become skewed by mindsets, symbolic events, and media and elite spin. In case studies ranging from the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and the current War on Terror, the authors show that much of what we accept about international politics and world history is not what it seems--and why, in a time when citizens offer or withdraw support based on an imagined view of the outcome rather than the result on the ground, perceptions of success or failure can shape the results of wars, the fate of leaders, and the "lessons" we draw from history.