Adam Makos And Larry Alexander’ Book A Higher Call
Adam Makos and Larry Alexander’ Book “A Higher Call” Term Paper
In their e-book, A Higher Call: An Incredible True Story of Combat and Chivalry within the War-Torn Skies of World War II, Adam Makos, and Larry Alexander discuss the story of Charlie Brown, the American Lieutenant, and Franz Stigler, the German Lieutenant, who had to face a lot of risks whereas combating to win in World War II. A threat could be outlined as the selection influenced by the uncertainty, which can have each adverse and positive results and as the specter of unfavorable consequences. Makos and Alexander describe many dangerous and dramatic conditions connected with the e-book’s characters, and they need to be analyzed intimately.
301 certified writers online
(1) The main danger confronted by Charlie Brown and Franz Stigler is associated with the situation when the German pilot avoided destroying the American bomber in December of 1943. Stigler selected the strategy of accepting the danger whereas lowering the minor secondary effects. On December 20, 1943, Brown piloted the bomber within the skies of Germany. The members of Brown’s crew have been wounded, and the bomber was partially destroyed because of the struggle’s results.
The pilot had no sources to fight in the skies of Germany, and he was answerable for the crew. Thus, “Charlie knew that when he pulled back on the yoke, the lives of nine men would be in his hands” (Makos and Alexander 171). From this level, through the first stage of the battle, Brown adopted the technique of avoiding the danger in order to save the lives of the crew members, but then he accepted the risk.
Franz Stigler, the German Lieutenant, was the ace in flying, and his task was to destroy the bomber of the enemy. Observing the American bomber and making selections about additional actions, Stigler needed to make a decision about fighting the enemy’s bomber because the officer of the German army. However, Stigler targeted on accepting the risk of being punished by the Gestapo, and he chose not to destroy the enemy’s forces (Makos and Alexander 171). Furthermore, Stigler selected to scale back the potential dangers for the American pilot, and he flew with the American bomber to the North Sea coast. Thus, Stigler’s techniques in handling the danger are based on accepting all the optimistic and unfavorable penalties of the scenario with out avoiding it.
(2) Lieutenant Roedel confronted a threat of inflating the victories in Africa due to Voegl and Bendert’s false claims. The spread of details about the features of the “Voegl Flight” grew to become threatening for the popularity of Roedel. To deal with the danger, Roedel selected the strategy of transferring the chance and its penalties to Voegl and Bendert while confronting them privately. The authors provide the cues that Roedel understood the controversy of the scenario, and he took action while using the digicam-equipped planes to be able to verify Voegl and Bender’s words about the victories.
To transfer the need of risk handling, Roedel chose to confront Voegl and Bendert in order to state the necessity for repairing the triggered damage. It can also be said in the e-book that “as punishment, Roedel stored both men within the desert so long as he may” (Makos and Alexander 101). Thus, Roedel coped with the danger for his reputation while specializing in the technique of transferring the chance to the persons answerable for its consequences.
(3) The subsequent important threat scenario discussed in the guide is related to the mission of Roedel, Neumann, Luetzow, Steinhoff, and Hannes Trautloft, who had to meet Goering and inform him in regards to the seriousness of their actions in relation to his removing. Makos and Alexander state that the lads “had all gathered for probably the most dangerous mission of their lives” (Makos and Alexander 273). The males understood the risk of being punished for his or her mission, they usually dealt with the risk whereas accepting its penalties.
The men are described as understanding all the adverse penalties, but they may not ignore the chance because of the need to alter the state of affairs. The authors of the guide observe that “they knew there was no turning again” (Makos and Alexander 273). This statement supports the concept the chance of meeting with Goering was handled by accepting it as an alternative of avoiding the scenario.
(4) One extra necessary threat to be mentioned was the situation when Franz Stigler risked the opposite individual’s life whereas supporting Pirchan in relation to the concept about his final flight. Pirchan deliberate to leave the unit, and Stigler persuaded the younger man to fly as a result of he discussed the German skies as safer than usual. However, the younger man’s aircraft crashed. From this level, it is possible to conclude that Stigler chose the approach of ignoring the danger because of specializing in his private concerns. The subsequent stage was to take an emotional risk of meeting with Pirchan’s family so as to inform them about Pirchan’s demise and to say ‘good-purchase’ (Makos and Alexander 336-337). At this stage, Stigler could be discussed as handling the danger while accepting the state of affairs and its penalties.
The risk as the state of affairs based mostly on the principle of the uncertainty about the further consequences could be handled with the focus on completely different approaches. In the guide, A Higher Call: An Incredible True Story of Combat and Chivalry in the War-Torn Skies of World War II written by Adam Makos and Larry Alexander, the characters reveal completely different approaches to dealing with the risk while making a selection.
Makos, Adam, and Larry Alexander. A Higher Call: An Incredible True Story of Combat and Chivalry in the War-Torn Skies of World War II. USA: Penguin, 2012. Print.
Unfortunately, your browser is simply too old to work on this site.