Do you agree the victory of the Allies was inevitable in view of their economic superiority?

Discussions of World War II frequently involve a lot of “what ifs.” In other words, scholars and others enjoy speculating about the outcome of World War II in the event that specific decisions had not been made and specific actions had not been taken. These discussions often center around hypotheticals such as “what if Japan had not attacked American military installations in Hawaii and invaded the Philippine Islands” or “what if Germany had not delayed its invasion of Russia?” Another question involves the absence of American aircraft carriers from Pearl Harbor at the time of the Japanese surprise attack, which crippled the fleet of battleships but left the mobile airbases available to fight in the ensuing war against Japan.

Just as hypothetical scenarios involving World War II often revolve around questions about timing and poor (in retrospect) decisions by Axis and Allied leaders alike, many question the importance of the economic strength of the Allies relative to that of the Axis powers. To a large extent, that economic power resided solely in the United States, the industrial capacity of which did indeed play a major role in the war’s outcome. This industrial capacity was not only enormous, it was also protected from direct attack by geographical realities, namely, the fact that the continental United States could not be bombed by the Axis powers due to the physical limitations of German and Japanese bombers. Britain was well within reach of German airpower (and, later, V-1 and V-2 rockets) and suffered enormous physical damage as a result. The larger American industrial base suffered no such fate. As such, it is clear that American economic might was one of the determining factors in the eventual defeat of the Axis countries.

While economic might was important to the war’s outcome,  the tenacity, bravery, and ruthlessness of the Red Army in driving Germany out of Russia was just as important. Whether an earlier or later start to Operation Barbarossa would have resulted in a different outcome will never be known with certainty. What is known is that the combination of the extended German supply lines, the brutal Russian winter, and the brilliance of the Red Army generals who had survived Stalin’s purges played an enormous role in Germany’s defeat. Russia’s economy was devastated by mismanagement and German military activities, but its industrial capacity proved formidable in its own right: Russian factories churned out tanks, aircraft, ammunition and other forms of weaponry in abundance.

Yes, the Allies’ economic might was important in winning the war. That economic might, however, largely resided in North America. German miscalculations, coupled with the Russian ability to field tremendous numbers of planes, tanks, machine guns, and soldiers, were just as important. Success was the result of multiple factors, with economic might being only one.

In Gulliver's Travels, what in the king of Brobdingnag's criticism makes you think that Swift was satirizing his own society?

Gulliver thinks that the king of Brobdingnag is pretty simple; he does not really understand the way the world works.  Gulliver says, 

[The king] wondered to hear me talk of such chargeable and extensive Wars; that, certainly we must be a quarrelsome People, or live among very bad Neighbours [....].  Above all, he was amazed to hear me talk of a mercenary standing Army in the Midst of Peace, and among a free People.  He said, if we were governed by our own Consent in the Persons of our Representatives, he could not imagine of whom we were afraid, or against whom we were to fight [...].

The king's criticism of a standing army is a popular theme in England during this era.  According to the notes for this section, Swift had taken an anti-army stance in some of his other writings, as had a number of other prominent writers.  Further, an argument in Utopia makes a similar argument, comparing mercenary soldiers to thieves.  

Further, Gulliver's offer to share the secrets of gunpowder with the king elicits harsh criticism.  He says,

The King was struck with Horror and the Description I had given of those terrible Engines, and the Proposal I had made.  He was amazed how so impotent and groveling an Insect as I (these were his Expressions) could entertain such inhuman ideas, and in so familiar a Manner as to appear wholly unmoved at all the Scenes of Blood and Desolation.

Such criticism, again pointing out how violent Gulliver's people are, cannot help but remind us of all the wars fought in England over politics, religion, territories, and so forth.  Their absolute willingness to use gunpowder, something the English also used extensively, further points the finger at England as the object of the king's criticism.

If a different character was to narrate the story, what aspects of the story would be different?

The narrator of Sebastian Faulks's novel Birdsong is not one person or character: Faulks employs a third person omniscient narrator, which means that the narrator knows everything but does not speak from the perspective of any one person. 

That being said, we should establish that the two main characters are Stephen, an English soldier fighting on the front lines during World War I, and his granddaughter, Elizabeth, who tries to piece together the details of her...

The narrator of Sebastian Faulks's novel Birdsong is not one person or character: Faulks employs a third person omniscient narrator, which means that the narrator knows everything but does not speak from the perspective of any one person. 

That being said, we should establish that the two main characters are Stephen, an English soldier fighting on the front lines during World War I, and his granddaughter, Elizabeth, who tries to piece together the details of her grandfather's history during a separate timeline in the 1970s.

Now, back to the question of the narrator. By its very definition, a third person omniscient narrator knows a lot about how the characters feel. However, this narrator is not actually experiencing the inner life of any of the characters: the narrator delves into their deeper thoughts, but he (she?) also makes outside observations and judgments about Stephen, Elizabeth, and the story's other characters. 

How would it be different if Stephen himself were the narrator? We would get a much richer, fuller idea of the traumas that he endures during the war. As it is, this book is tough to read: it is emotionally draining to read about Stephen losing his best friend on the battlefield, losing the love of his life, and so on. However, because the narrator is not actually inside Stephen's mind, we get an overview of these events that is more distant than it would be if Stephen were the narrator. There is a summary of the pain that Stephen experiences in the trenches, but there is much that we are left to imagine. 

No child or future generation will ever know what this was like.  They will never understand.  When it is over we will go quietly among the living, and we will not tell them.  We will seal what we have seen in the silence of our hearts and no words will reach us.

This passage is directed at us as readers. Because of Faulks's choice of narrator, we can guess what a soldier's traumas might have been like, but we will never truly know. We "will never understand." 

How is war addressed in Grunt?

War is a major theme in by Mary Roach. Gruntexplores the (often unusual) ways in which science is being applied in the military. Unlike most other investigations into military technology, Roach’s book focuses not on the technology that kills—guns, missiles, drones, and so on—but on the way technology is being used to save and improve the lives of soldiers. The nature of her investigation leads her to examine war on a smaller scale...

War is a major theme in by Mary Roach. Grunt explores the (often unusual) ways in which science is being applied in the military. Unlike most other investigations into military technology, Roach’s book focuses not on the technology that kills—guns, missiles, drones, and so on—but on the way technology is being used to save and improve the lives of soldiers. The nature of her investigation leads her to examine war on a smaller scale than we traditionally would. Most of the scientists she speaks to are working on projects that won’t help the US win a battle, but might save a soldier’s life or even just prevent them from sustaining an unnecessary injury. In her quest to learn more about how military science is actually being used, Roach often finds the humor and absurdity in some of the more bizarre pieces of technology. For example, she describes a “chicken gun” that fires frozen chickens at aircrafts to test whether their windshields are strong enough to withstand high-speed collisions with birds. However, Roach also finds some of these experiments very sobering. While she recognizes the value of learning from the bodies of deceased soldiers so that similar deaths may be avoided in the future, seeing the actual bodies of young fallen soldiers is difficult and makes Roach wonder whether war is ever truly justified in the first place.

What is the climax of "The Possibility of Evil" and why?

In literature, a climax is a moment in which the tension in a story reaches its peak. It is also helpful to think of the climax as a turning point in a story, a moment which leads directly to the resolution.

In "The Possibility of Evil," the climax occurs when Miss Strangeworth goes to the mail slot at the post office and accidentally drops one of her poison pen letters. Instead of posting this letter,...

In literature, a climax is a moment in which the tension in a story reaches its peak. It is also helpful to think of the climax as a turning point in a story, a moment which leads directly to the resolution.

In "The Possibility of Evil," the climax occurs when Miss Strangeworth goes to the mail slot at the post office and accidentally drops one of her poison pen letters. Instead of posting this letter, it is picked up by the Harris boy who sees that it is addressed to Don Crane. Thinking it might be important, the Harris boy decides to deliver it to Don Crane himself.

This moment is climactic because the audience realizes that once Don Crane receives the letter, Miss Strangeworth's secret will become public knowledge. Everybody will know (and have undeniable proof) that she is the author of the poison pen letters. What really adds to the tension in this scene is that Miss Strangeworth has no idea that her letter has been intercepted by the Harris boy. As a result, she is powerless to stop this chain of events.

Why did the United States enter World War I? How did the United States contribute before and after World War I?

In popular consciousness, the obvious answer to this question is "because of the Zimmerman telegram", which is not a full answer, but it did serve as the last straw for the American people, convincing them that war with Germany was inevitable. The origins of the infamous telegram have been the subject of much debate, with some suggesting even that it was a hoax sent by Allied troops to spur the United States into action. This is thoroughly unlikely, but it gives some indication of the status the telegram achieved and retained thereafter. The telegram, sent in early 1917, was a promise from Germany to Mexico that the lands they had lost to the United States in the Mexican-American war would be returned to them as a reward for joining in the war on the German side. This enraged the American public and swung support in favor of the war—but ongoing events since 1915 had already effectively determined Woodrow Wilson's opinion that the US must enter World War I. 

At this point in time, the United States traded intensively with Britain, meaning that its ships were regular fixtures in European waters. Before the war, this was not an issue, but after war was declared, it swiftly became clear that American ships were in danger, despite the fact that the United States was ostensibly a neutral country. In 1915, Germany publicly announced that these attacks on United States ships were deliberate: part of its strategy was to lock down the island nation of Britain and deprive it of all incoming goods by simply blowing up any ship that threatened to land there. One of the most notable ships sunk by these German attacks was the Lusitania, a passenger liner and sister ship to the Titanic, which was sunk in 1915 resulting in the loss of thousands of civilian lives. While the German response to the outrage this caused was to promise no further attacks on civilian liners, this promise was not kept. Attacks on American and other foreign ships began to intensify in the latter half of the war, when Germany feared it had lost and was desperately trying to push Britain into declaring defeat. Spurred by the turn in public opinion generated by the Zimmerman telegram, the United States entered the war on April 6, 1917. 

The second half of your question is less clear, but I will answer based on my understanding of it: how did the United States contribute to ending World War I? One of the major reasons Britain sought the aid of the United States was because of its financial clout. The United States could, and did, contribute significantly to the war effort in terms of funding and weapons, as well as sheer manpower. The American troops, unlike the worn-down British and French, were enthusiastic and new to the battle, although in most cases they were as untrained as their Allied counterparts had been. Their assistance was particularly important in the Spring and Final offensives of 1918, when the Germans were pushed back out of France and into Germany. The arrival of so many fresh troops was also a propaganda victory for Britain, as it helped lift the spirits of the men who had, in many cases, been fighting for three years and were beginning to feel worn down. Of equal importance was the blow their arrival struck to German morale, which was already low.

how does gregors family feel about the metamorphosis

Gregor lives with his mother, father, and sister (Grete). One morning, he wakes up and realizes that he's transformed into a bug. As he ponders what to do, his family comes to his door, reminding him that it is time to get up and start his day. Because he does not get out of bed, he is late for work. The chief clerk comes to his house to question why he did not leave on the early train. Through all of this, Gregor's mother insists that Gregor is sick, and the chief clerk insists that, whether sick or not, business and work are priorities. 

Finally, Gregor decides to try to get out of bed, though a giant bug. He's been talking with with his family and the chief clerk through the door, but has not tried to get out of his bed until now. After he falls from the bed, he tries to talk to his family and the chief clerk, but this time he makes mere bug noises:

"Quick, get the doctor. Did you hear the way Gregor spoke just now?" "That was the voice of an animal", said the chief clerk, with a calmness that was in contrast with his mother's screams."

Immediately, the house is in an uproar as they try to find out how to get to Gregor. (And, they haven't even seen his bug-self yet.)

After great effort, Gregor manages to open the door. Upon seeing him, the chief clerk shouts out, "oh!" and his family responds with even greater shock:

"Gregor's mother, her hair still dishevelled . . .  unfolded her arms, took two steps forward towards Gregor and sank down onto the floor into her skirts . . .  His father looked hostile, and clenched his fists as if wanting to knock Gregor back into his room. . . "

His mother went into a state of immediate shock, falling down in weakness as she witnesses Gregor in his bug form. His father grows angry, with his fists clenched, as he aggressively urges Gregor back to the confines of his room. The chief clerk storms out of the building, looking afraid, and Gregor retreats to his bedroom. 

The only kindness Gregor receives, after his transformation, is from his sister. When he wakes up from his deep sleep, he finds a plate of food:

"By the door there was a dish filled with sweetened milk with little pieces of white bread floating in it. He was so pleased he almost laughed, as he was even hungrier than he had been that morning . . . . But he soon drew his head back again in disappointment; . . . the milk did not taste at all nice."

Gregor leaves the food where it was placed; as a bug, Gregor is much more interested in rotten foods than fresh foods. Gregor's sister soon realizes this and begins to bring him the rotten smelly foods that he desires. Immediately after his transformation, Grete attempts to show Gregor kindness.

However, as the novella continues, Grete grows less patient with Gregor and her kind acts change. First she neglects him; later, her growing anger and frustration becomes evident. She tells her father:

"It's got to go . . . that's the only way, Father. You've got to get rid of the idea that that's Gregor. We've only harmed ourselves by believing it for so long."

Gregor, once the financial provider and leader of his household, is transformed into a helpless creature, who depends on others for his survival. He loses his job and seemingly loses the affections of his mother and father upon his transformation into a bug. When he remains a bug, even his sister stops showing him kindness. Grete, meanwhile, goes through her own sort of metamorphosis from a carefree young lady with plenty of leisure time to practice her violin to a woman called upon to help provide for her family's finances.