• ベストアンサー
  • 困ってます

英文を日本語訳して下さい。

In 1994, Afflerbach questioned the authenticity of the "Christmas Memorandum" in his biography of Falkenhayn; after studying the evidence that had survived in the Kriegsgeschichtliche Forschungsanstalt des Heeres (Army Military History Research Institute) files, he concluded that the memorandum had been written after the war but that it was an accurate reflection of much of Falkenhayn's thinking in 1916. Krumeich wrote that the Christmas Memorandum had been fabricated to justify a failed strategy and that attrition had been substituted for the capture of Verdun, only after the city was not taken quickly. Foley wrote that after the failure of the Ypres Offensive of 1914, Falkenhayn had returned to the pre-war strategic thinking of Moltke the Elder and Hans Delbrück on Ermattungsstrategie (attrition strategy), because the coalition fighting Germany was too powerful to be decisively defeated by military means.

共感・応援の気持ちを伝えよう!

  • 英語
  • 回答数1
  • 閲覧数61
  • ありがとう数1

質問者が選んだベストアンサー

  • ベストアンサー
  • 回答No.1
  • Nakay702
  • ベストアンサー率81% (8481/10448)

>In 1994, Afflerbach questioned the authenticity of the "Christmas Memorandum" in his biography of Falkenhayn; after studying the evidence that had survived in the Kriegsgeschichtliche Forschungsanstalt des Heeres* (Army Military History Research Institute) files, he concluded that the memorandum had been written after the war but that it was an accurate reflection of much of Falkenhayn's thinking in 1916. ⇒アフラーバッハは、1994年に、ファルケンハインの伝記にある「クリスマス・メモ」の確実性を問うてみた。「戦争史に関する研究施設」*(軍事史研究所)のファイルに残っている証拠を調査したあと、メモは戦争後に書かれたが、1916年のファルケンハインの考えの多くを正確に反映したものである、と彼は結論した。 *Kriegsgeschichtliche Forschungsanstalt des Heeres:「軍隊の戦争史に関する研究の公共施設」。なお、各語句の内容は以下のとおりです。Kriegsgeschichtliche=Kriegs「戦争」+geschicht「歴史」+liche(性質・所有・可能を表す接尾辞)。Forschungsanstalt=Forschungs「研究」+anstalt「公共施設」。des=(定冠詞2格、英.of the)。Heeres=「軍隊」。 >Krumeich wrote that the Christmas Memorandum had been fabricated to justify a failed strategy and that attrition had been substituted for the capture of Verdun, only after the city was not taken quickly. Foley wrote that after the failure of the Ypres Offensive of 1914, Falkenhayn had returned to the pre-war strategic thinking of Moltke the Elder and Hans Delbrück on Ermattungsstrategie* (attrition strategy), because the coalition fighting Germany was too powerful to be decisively defeated by military means. ⇒クルマイヒはこう書いた。すなわち、クリスマス・メモは、失敗した戦略を正当化するために捏造されたのであり、消耗戦がヴェルダンの攻略と置き換えられたのは、その都市が素早く奪回されなかった時だけである、と。フォーリーは次のように書いた。曰く、1914年のイープル攻撃の失敗の後、ファルケンハインはモルトケ(シニア)やハンス・デルブリュックのエルマトゥンク・ストラテジ*(消耗戦略)という戦前の戦略的考え方に戻したが、それは、ドイツ軍と戦っている連合軍が、自軍(ドイツ軍)の軍力をもって決定的に破るには、あまりに強力だったからである。 *Ermattungsstrategie=Ermattungs「疲労」+strategie「戦略」。人的・物的資源が減っても補充せず、自然減に任せる戦略。いわゆる、「消耗戦略」のこと。

共感・感謝の気持ちを伝えよう!

質問者からのお礼

回答ありがとうございました。

関連するQ&A

  • 和訳をお願いします。

    The Germans planned to use a large number of heavy and super-heavy guns to inflict a greater number of casualties than French artillery, which relied mostly upon the 75 mm field gun. In 2007, Foley wrote that Falkenhayn intended an attrition battle from the beginning, contrary to the views of Krumeich, Förster and others but the lack of surviving documents had led to many interpretations of Falkenhayn's strategy. At the time, critics of Falkenhayn claimed that the battle demonstrated that he was indecisive and unfit for command; in 1937, Förster had proposed the view "forcefully".

  • 英文翻訳をお願いします。

    Falkenhayn had underestimated the French, for whom victory at all costs was the only way to justify the sacrifices already made; the pressure imposed on the French army never came close to making the French collapse and triggering a premature British relief offensive. The ability of the German army to inflict disproportionate losses had also been exaggerated, in part because the 5th Army commanders had tried to capture Verdun and attacked regardless of loss; even when reconciled to Falkenhayn's attrition strategy, they continued to use the costly Vernichtungsstrategie (strategy of annihilation) and tactics of Bewegungskrieg (manoeuvre warfare). Failure to reach the Meuse Heights, forced the 5th Army to try to advance from poor tactical positions and to impose attrition by infantry attacks and counter-attacks.

  • 日本語訳をお願いいたします。

    Falkenhayn wrote in his memoir that he sent an appreciation of the strategic situation to the Kaiser in December 1915, The string in France has reached breaking point. A mass breakthrough—which in any case is beyond our means—is unnecessary. Within our reach there are objectives for the retention of which the French General Staff would be compelled to throw in every man they have. If they do so the forces of France will bleed to death. — Falkenhayn The German strategy in 1916 was to inflict mass casualties on the French, a goal achieved against the Russians from 1914 to 1915, to weaken the French Army to the point of collapse. The French Army had to be drawn into circumstances from which it could not escape, for reasons of strategy and prestige.

  • 英文を日本語訳して下さい。

    Once the region was partitioned, both "Germany and Poland attempted to 'cleanse' their shares of Upper Silesia" via oppression resulting in Germans migrating to Germany and Poles migrating to Poland. Despite the oppression and migration, Opole Silesia "remained ethnically mixed. Frank Russell wrote that, in regards to the Saar plebiscite, the inhabitants "were not terrorized at the polls" and the "totalitarian [Nazi] German regime was not distasteful to most of the Saar inhabitants and that they preferred it even to an efficient, economical, and benevolent international rule." When the outcome of the vote became known, 4,100 (including 800 refugees who had previously fled Germany) residents fled over the border into France. Military terms and violations During the formulation of the treaty, the British wanted Germany to abolish conscription and be allowed to maintain volunteer Army. The French wanted Germany to maintain a conscript army of up to 200,000 men in order to justify their own maintenance of a similar force. Thus the treaty's allowance of 100,000 volunteers was a compromise between the British and French positions. Germany, on the other hand, saw the terms as leaving them defenseless against any potential enemy. Bernadotte Everly Schmitt wrote that "there is no reason to believe that the Allied governments were insincere when they stated at the beginning of Part V of the Treaty ... that in order to facilitate a general reduction of the armament of all nations, Germany was to be required to disarm first." A lack of American ratification of the treaty or joining the League of Nations left France unwilling to disarm, which resulted in a German unwillingness to rearm. Schmitt argued "had the four Allies remained united, they could have forced Germany really to disarm, and the German will and capacity to resist other provisions of the treaty would have correspondingly diminished." Max Hantke and Mark Spoerer wrote "military and economic historians [have] found that the German military only insignificantly exceeded the limits" of the treaty prior to 1933.[236] Adam Tooze concurred, and wrote "To put this in perspective, annual military spending by the Weimar Republic was counted not in the billions but in the hundreds of millions of Reichsmarks"; for example, the Weimar Republic's 1931 program of 480 million Reichsmarks over five years compared to the Nazi Government's 1933 plan to spend 4.4 billion Reichsmarks per year. P.M.H. Bell argued that the British Government was aware of latter Weimar rearming, and lent public respectability to the German efforts by not opposing them. Norman Davies wrote that "a curious oversight" of the military restrictions were that they "did not include rockets in its list of prohibited weapons", which provided Wernher von Braun an area to research within eventually resulting in "his break [that] came in 1943" leading to the development of the V-2 rocket.

  • 日本語訳をお願いいたします。

    In May, Falkenhayn estimated that the French had lost 525,000 men against 250,000 German casualties and that the French strategic reserve had been reduced to 300,000 troops. Actual French losses were c. 130,000 by 1 May and the Noria system had enabled 42 divisions to be withdrawn and rested, when their casualties reached 50 percent. Of the 330 infantry battalions of the French metropolitan army, 259 (78 percent) went to Verdun, against 48 German divisions, 25 percent of the Westheer (western army). Afflerbach wrote that 85 French divisions fought at Verdun and that from February to August, the ratio of German to French losses was 1:1.1, not the third of French losses assumed by Falkenhayn. By 31 August, 5th Army losses were 281,000 and French casualties numbered 315,000 men.

  • 英文翻訳をお願いします。

    The continental powers had begun the war with trained armies of regulars and reservists, which were wasting assets. Crown Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria wrote, "What remained of the old first-class peace-trained German infantry had been expended on the battlefield". A war of attrition was a logical strategy for Britain against Germany, which was also at war with France and Russia. A school of thought holds that the Battle of the Somme placed unprecedented strain on the German army and that after the battle it was unable to replace casualties like-for-like, which reduced it to a militia. The destruction of German units in battle was made worse by lack of rest. British and French aircraft and long-range guns reached well behind the front-line, where trench-digging and other work meant that troops returned to the line exhausted.

  • 英文を日本語訳して下さい。

    British operations on the Ancre took place during a period of considerable change in British methods and equipment. Over the winter, an increasing flow of weapons and munitions from British industry and overseas suppliers, was used to increase the number of Lewis guns to 16 per battalion, a scale of one per platoon. A new infantry training manual that standardised the structure, equipment and methods of the infantry platoon was prepared over the winter and was published as SS 143 in February 1917. The division was re-organised, according to the system given in SS 135 of December 1916. The 8th Division attack at Bouchavesnes on 4 March, took place after the changes to the infantry platoon had been implemented, which provided them with the means to fight forward, in the absence of artillery support and under local command, as part of a much more structured all-arms attack than had been achieved in 1916.

  • 英文を日本語訳して下さい。

    In June 1916, the amount of French artillery at Verdun had been increased to 2,708 guns, including 1,138 × 75 mm field guns; the French and German armies fired c. 10,000,000 shells, with a weight of 1,350,000 long tons (1,370,000 t) from February–December. The German offensive had been contained by French reinforcements, difficulties of terrain and the weather by May, with the 5th Army infantry stuck in tactically dangerous positions, overlooked by the French on the east bank and the west bank, instead of secure on the Meuse Heights. Attrition of the French forces was inflicted by constant infantry attacks, which were vastly more costly than waiting for French counter-attacks and defeating them with artillery. The stalemate was broken by the Brusilov Offensive and the Anglo-French relief offensive on the Somme, which had been expected to lead to the collapse of the Anglo-French armies.

  • 英文を日本語訳して下さい。

    These represent some of the highest casualties of the campaign. The toll was particularly heavy amongst the Australian officers; both the commanding officers of the 2nd and 3rd Battalions were killed leading their troops. After the battle, the dead were so thick on the ground that one Australian, Captain Harold Jacobs of the 1st Battalion, remarked "[t]he trench is so full of our dead that the only respect that we could show them was not to tread on their faces, the floor of the trench was just one carpet of them, this in addition to the ones we piled into Turkish dugouts." Later, over 1,000 dead were removed from Australian position to be hastily buried. Seven Australians were awarded the Victoria Cross for their actions during the fighting at Lone Pine, including four men from the 7th Battalion, which had been rushed forward to help relieve the 1st Brigade at the height of the Ottoman counterattacks. One of the recipients was Corporal William Dunstan, who after the war became the general manager of The Herald newspaper in Melbourne. Another VC recipient was Captain Alfred Shout who had already earned the Military Cross and been Mentioned in Despatches earlier in the Gallipoli campaign. He was mortally wounded at Lone Pine and was later buried at sea. The other VC recipients were Privates Leonard Keysor and John Hamilton, Corporal Alexander Burton and Lieutenants Frederick Tubb and William Symons. After the war, an Australian military historical mission was sent to Gallipoli, led by Charles Bean. On Bean's advice the Australian government sought permission from the newly formed Turkish Republic to establish an official war cemetery in the area. In 1923 the Treaty of Lausanne was ratified, and through its provisions the Lone Pine cemetery was established in the area, dubbed the Daisy Patch by the Australians. There are a total of 1,167 graves in the cemetery and as of 2012, the identities of 471 bodies interred in the cemetery remain unknown. Also standing within the cemetery's grounds is the Lone Pine memorial. It is the main Australian and New Zealand memorial at Gallipoli and commemorates all the Australian and some of the New Zealanders who died during the campaign, including those who have no known grave and those buried at sea. As a result of the battle's significance to the Australians, Lone Pine is the site of the annual Australian Anzac Day dawn service at Gallipoli. After the service Australian visitors congregate at the memorial to remember all their countrymen who fought and died at Gallipoli. At the New Zealand National World War I Museum, there is an exhibit for the Battle of Lone Pine, and there is also one in the Australian War Memorial. Memorial "Lone Pine" trees have also been planted in Australia, New Zealand and Gallipoli to commemorate the battle and the Gallipoli campaign in general, seeded from specimens taken from Gallipoli. There are also many places in Australia named after the battle.

  • 英文を日本語訳して下さい。

    Joseph Joffre, who had been Commander-in-Chief of the French army since 1911 and the Minister of War, Adolphe Messimy met on 1 August, to agree that the military conduct of the war should exclusively be the responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief. On 2 August, as small parties of German soldiers crossed the French border, Messimy told Joffre that he had the freedom to order French troops across the German but not the Belgian frontier. Joffre sent warning orders to the covering forces near the frontier, requiring the VII Corps to prepare to advance towards Mühlhausen (French: Mulhouse) to the north-east of Belfort and XX Corps to make ready to begin an offensive towards Nancy. As soon as news arrived that German troops had entered Luxembourg, the Fourth Army was ordered to move between the Third and Fifth armies, ready to attack to the north of Verdun. Operations into Belgium were forbidden, to deny the Germans a pretext until 4 August, when it was certain that German troops had already violated the Belgian border. To comply with the Franco-Russian Alliance, Joffre ordered an invasion of Alsace-Lorraine on for 14 August, although anticipating a German offensive through Belgium.