Court Martial of Billy Mitchell.

¶ … Court Martial of Billy Mitchell. Specifically it will discuss the film and its importance in understanding world history. The film "The Court-Martial of Billy Mitchell" tells the story of a celebrated World War I flyer, Brigadier General Billy Mitchell. The film takes place in 1920s America, and it shows Mitchell's court-martial trial, something that is amazing since he had such an exceptional record fighting in World War I. He was certain the airplane is one of the best military items for defense; he tries to persuade military leaders to create what would eventually become the Air Force. When they do not understand or take him seriously, Mitchell breaks the rules and drops a bomb, sinking a ship. The bureaucrats did not think this was possible, and he proved them wrong. However, since he disobeyed orders, they demote him to a Colonel and send him to an isolated military base in Texas.

While he is in Texas he witnesses plane crashes from planes that were not maintained or equipped right, and it enrages him that young aviators are dying. He essentially charges his commanding officers of treason, and after the plane crashes, he accuses them of ineptitude and criminal neglect. The accusations come during a very public press conference, and this is what leads up the court-martial. However, the press now knows about the problems with military leaders and their ignorance of faulty equipment. Mitchell has strong principles throughout this video, and his actions helped him gain support from the public in real life, but in the end, the judge finds him guilty and his punishment is a five-year suspension from the Army. Through it all, he remains loyal to the Army, which is difficult to believe, considering all they have put him through.

It is quite clear that Billy Mitchell was a hero who had foresight and a good head on his shoulders. He can foresee the future of aviation and the military, and he understands that planes will play a vital role in military operations. It is hard to believe that the people in charge had so little foresight and understanding of warfare and the future, and this film shows that people can be exceedingly pigheaded when they want to be. It shows the bureaucracy of the military, too, and how leaders simply do not want to change or learn from their mistakes.

Mitchell predicted many things, like an attack on the country that eventually happened at Pearl Harbor, and that they would found a military academy for aviators, which eventually happened at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. He was a forward-thinker who had a grasp of how the military could change and grow, and what he got for it was a court-martial. This film also shows that innovation and government are not always hand in hand, and that people who are innovators are not always appreciated or even paid attention to. Mitchell was really a hero, but he was treated like a criminal, and that is a sad point in American history.

This film is based on a true story, and I think that makes it even more meaningful. It shows that there were leadership issues in the Army, and that could and probably is true even today, so it indicates that we have not learned much from history. The story of Pat Tillman's death and the cover-up by the Army shows that is still true. Tillman, a football hero, was killed by friendly fire in Iraq, and the Army attempted to cover up the incident. That shows that military leaders can still make poor judgement calls, and that we really have not learned very much from mistakes in the past. It shows that military leaders can be flawed, and that while we rely on our military for our safety and security, it is not perfect, and we, the public, should never forget that, and never stop holding the military accountable for its mistakes and its leadership.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce, discuss, and analyze the film "Paths of Glory." Specifically it will discuss the film and its importance in understanding world history. This film is a World War I epic. It takes place during the war in 1916, (before America became involved), and it shows the attack by French soldiers of a German position known as the "Ant Hill." The position is on the Western Front, near Verdun in France, and it is a gripping look at the trench warfare tactics of the war. The French soldiers are clearly unready for an attack, but the crazy General makes them attack in spite of their worthiness, because of his own selfish needs and wants. Ultimately, it is no surprise that the attack fails, the men simply were not ready, and some of them will not even leave the trenches because they know it is hopeless. The General is enraged because of this, and he convinces his commander that he must discipline the men because of their "mutiny." He chooses three men to court-martial as an example to the other soldiers.

The General is front and center in the courtroom, which ultimately threatens the judge, who finds the men guilty, even though they are defended with great skill by Colonel Dax, a commander in the regiment who understand just how crazy the General really is. Dax tries to get the judge to change his mind, but the men are shot for their crimes anyway. At the end, a jaded Dax turns down a promotion, but it seems that another man will accuse the General of ordering his men to fire on the men who refused to leave the trenches, so it seems as if justice may still be done to the General. Like the other video, this film is a look at military leadership and how it can become corrupt and ineffectual. The General is power hungry and perhaps even crazy, and he should not be leading men.

The film also shows the violence and insanity of war, and what trench warfare was like to a degree, showing the hardships the men had to face, the conditions, and the brutality of war and the battlefield. Some of the most memorable moments are not in the courtroom, but on the battlefield as the men attempt to take the "Ant Hill," knowing it is an impossible, suicidal task.

It is a very dark look at war and warfare, and, like the other film, it questions the leadership and their ability to lead, which is a troubling aspect of both these films and their take on history. It shows the military as inherently flawed, and there is little to make me think that has changed in modern history.