Category: War

A proxy war refers to a situation when a superpower wages war in a conflict area but is not directly engaged in that war. An example of a proxy war in the Middle East is an armed conflict between Saudi Arabia and Yemens Houthi rebels, with the latter being supported by Iran. This is a proxy war because Iran does not provide Yemen with troops; instead, it only supplies s it with funding and weapons, thus avoiding direct engagement in the conflict (Byman). Although proxy wars bear many risks, countries engaging in proxy wars can get several gains from them.

First of all, countries may gain power in the region at a relatively low cost. This is one of the main reasons for the US to engage in proxy wars in the Middle East (Byman). By leading a proxy war, superpowers can get intelligence more effectively. Moreover, using the local population not only allows them to avoid human losses among their own troops but also helps prevent nationalistic backlash because local forces are more accepted in the community than foreign ones. In addition, proxy wars can help sponsoring countries promote their ideologies and enhance their leadership credibility among the domestic population.

Further, proxy wars can assist countries in engaging in the conflict without leading to its escalation. For example, in a conflict between the Lebanese Hezbollah and Israel, the former got massive military and financial support from Iran, which makes this conflict a proxy war (Byman). Irans acting as a sponsor prevented the escalation of the conflict because its direct involvement in the war would compel Israel to fight back.

To sum up, proxy wars can sometimes bring certain gains. In particular, the sponsoring country can get power in the region of the conflict without incurring high costs, promote its political ideology, and avoid conflict escalation. Yet, proxy wars can also aggravate the conflict, lead to high spending of resources, and may not necessarily result in the achievement of the goals of the sponsoring country.

Work Cited

Byman, Daniel L. Why Engage in Proxy War? A States Perspective. Brookings, 2018.

Lead Actors

Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, Harrison Ford, and Peter Cushing.

Plot

It is a period of civil war. Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire (Lucas, 1977). Imperial forces, commanded by Darth Vader, capture on the rebel ships with Princess Leia on the board.

She has time to hide the plans of the Empire in a little droid (R2-D2) and send it to the planet Tatooine in order to find and ask for help Obi-Wan Kenobi. Jawa traders quickly capture R2-D2 and his fellow C-3PO on Tatooine and sell them to one family. A young man, Luke Skywalker, tries to clean the droid and finds out a hidden message where Leia asks Kenobi for help. When Luke finds Obi-Wan, he decides to join Kenobi and save a girl. Luke Skywalker meets Han Solo and hires him to find Leia. They cannot even imagine what adventures are waiting for them.

Exploration

The great majority of visual effects are created by means of motion control photography. Such a technique helps to produce the illusion of size with the help of slowly moving cameras. As it was independent filmmaking, the director of the movie had to create lots of elements on his own. For this film, a new library of sounds was created. It was an organic soundtrack. For example, steel cables under tension were used to create a sound of blasters. With the help of synthesizers, the voices of robots and droids were created.

In general, the movie was a real breakthrough in cinematography. George Lucas created something special, unusual for those times. Its constant radio and comic book adaptations are one of the best arguments that this movie is a real masterpiece.

Reference List

Kurtz, G. (Producer), & Lucas, G. (Director). (1977). Star Wars, Episode IV: A New Hope. United States: 20th Century Fox & Lucasfilm.

Introduction

World War II remains one of the most devastating conflicts in the recent history of humankind, and its effects still echo in modern society. Therefore, exploring the events of WWII will allow understanding the challenges of the contemporary political and economic choices made on the global scale better. The Battle of the Bulge is, perhaps, one of the best-known events in WWII. Representing the military action, the outcomes of which were predetermined to a significant degree, it marked the beginning of the Axis powers gradual defeat despite having been initiated by the German troops and aimed at gaining the advantage in the Western Front.

Main body

In retrospect, the Battle of the Bulge can be seen as one of the largest strategic mistakes made by Germany due to the false assumption of military superiority. Underestimating their forces, the German troops headed to the Western Front in order to conquer it and take a more favorable geographic and military position. The specified choice was made with no regard for the possible obstacles and the strategic approaches that the U.S. Army could deploy. Although the German troops managed to kill a large number of the American soldiers and capture new territories, the approach that the troops of the Allies utilized to attack the Nazis led to the ultimate triumph.

However, before the Allies managed to defeat the German army, they had to face several devastating defeats that allowed German soldiers to enter the Western Front fast and capture several essential areas. The fast advancement of the German army can be explained by the lack of preparedness among the Allies since the very endeavor at seizing Luxembourg and Belgium during what Hitler called the Ardennes Offensive (North 176) seemed impossible.

The attack started by the fact that German troops took Dwight Eisenhower, who was the Expeditionary Force supreme commander, completely by surprise, thus, causing significant losses among the U.S. military. The fact that German soldiers used the forest to camouflage themselves and conceal their location explains the lack of efficiency among the U. S. Army in the attempts to control the situation and minimize the advantage of the German troops.

The German army had a well-developed strategy that made it practically invincible to the Allies. Hasso, Freiherr von Manteuffel attacked the U.S. Army and headed in the northwest direction to capture Antwerp and develop a barricade that would prevent the U.S. troops from interfering (Ford-Jones and Jones 192). By using both the topography of the area and the weather conditions, the German army managed to capture a significant area and advance even farther, thus beginning to pose a large threat to the population of Antwerp and the nearby areas (North 73). The Battle of the Bulge culminated in the Siege of Bastogne, during which both sides experienced drastic damages, yet the allies managed to defeat the enemy due to the divisionary attack that occurred in the eastward area of the front.

Even though both sides experienced large losses, the remnants of the German army continued to move northward. The army reached the Meuse when it was attacked by the British troops under the command of Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery (North 27).

As a result, the German arm failed to cross the Meuse and advance (North 165). However, the specified maneuver did not stop the soldiers from continuing to attack and try to seize strategically important areas. Specifically, the Unternehmen Herbstnebel and von Rundstedts Fall Martin operations created the setting in which the U.S. and the British troops could not continue to fight against the Nazi forces (North 26).

However, on January 3, 1945, the German Army prepared for a counteroffensive, which was expected to set an elaborate trap for the Allies. Despite the initial assumptions, the U.S. troops managed to avoid the trap, and the efforts that it took from Germany to build the counteroffensive were the final straw for the German army (North 18). The lack of success in the operation that the German army believed to be extraordinarily fast and equally effective caused a devastating drop in the opponents ability to maintain the status quo and retain their success.

Conclusion

When considering the factors that allowed the American troops to defeat the German army, one should mention the strategy that the U.S. Army deployed when fighting the invaders. Instead of attacking them directly, the U.S. 2nd Battalion split into smaller groups and initiated a series of local attacks, thus not only causing the enemy significant damage but also demoralizing the overly confident German troops (Ford-Jones and Jones 211).

The specified approach toward handling the Battle of the Bulge worked especially well since the German soldiers were overly confident due to the streak of success that they had had prior to the specified line of events. In addition, the lack of knowledge about the infrastructure and geography of the area halted the advancement of the German military significantly. Particularly, German soldiers found it excruciatingly difficult to move forward due to the poor condition of the roads, which made it possible for the Allies troops to thwart the progress of the Axis powers on the Western Front.

Works Cited

North, David C. World War II: Battle of the Bulge. New Word City, 2015.

Ford-Jones, Martyn R., and Robert W. Jones. A Royal Engineer at War 1940-1945: From Crossing the Desert to Crossing the Rhine. Fonthill Media, 2017.

Introduction

The end of World War II arguably marked the start of one of the most peaceful eras in human history because there has been no other war that compares in scope and magnitude. This conflict set two groups of world superpowers against each other  the axis and the allies (Delaney 2012). On one hand, the axis was led by Germany and was supported by Italy and Japan. On the other hand, were allied forces, which consisted of Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom, and China. On June 6, 1944 (also called the D-day), the allied forces invaded France to attack Germans in a war that eventually led to the capture of Berlin and the eventual death of Adolf Hitler, who chose to kill himself instead of conceding defeat (History.com Editing Team 2019). The success of D-day also marked the end of the German invasion in Western Europe and its consequent liberation from Nazi influence that had been propagated by Hitlers aggression on the larger European continent.

D-day changed the social and political structure of global politics from the mid-1940s to date and contributed towards the creation of the United Nations as a respected global body whose core mandate is to promote global peace and prosperity in different aspects of social, political, and economic development. In America, D-day is celebrated as a symbol of military sophistication and global cooperation to promote freedom and prosperity for all people (Delaney 2012). On this basis, this paper explores the tactics used by allied forces to win the war. This investigation is founded on the understanding that allied forces won the battle through their intense planning and execution of military strategies. This paper investigates the intricacies that led to the D-day success and how the planners and executors of the war collaborated to end the conflict. In line with this statement, key sections of this report demonstrate that the use of deceptive practices, morale-boosting strategies, and effective planning/execution of military strategies formed the basis of Americas success in ending the Second World War. Aligned with this statement, this paper demonstrates that the success of D-day is historically significant to America and the allied forces due to the organization, planning, and execution of complex military strategies by the collaborators.

Deception

The allied forces were able to defeat the Germans by using deceptive practices to fool Hitlers troops into formulating ineffective defense strategies that were later exploited to secure victory. Indeed, the allied forces used trickery as a technique to destabilize the Germans because, although Hitler and his forces knew they were going to be attacked by America and its allies, they could not correctly predict where the attack would take place (History.com Editing Team 2019). Exploiting this weakness, the allied forces used several techniques to create confusion among the axis, alliance, including sending wrong radio signals to enemy radar and using fake equipment to provide false geopolitical information about their military attack plans (Lamothe, 2014). These strategies destabilized the Germans.

The use of deceptive practices to defeat the axis alliance was sanctioned soon after Eisenhower was appointed a leading commander of the D-day operation. The main benefit that the allied forces enjoyed by using trickery to scuttle its enemies is the creation of a smokescreen target intended to mislead the Germans on where the actual attack would happen. For example, the Americans misled the enemies into thinking that the attack would happen in Pas-de-Calais, while they planned to attack Normandy, which was miles away from the presumed location (Three-D History 2020). By using the same deceptive tactics, the allied forces also misled the Germans into thinking that other locations, such as Norway, were potential targets, which was not the case.

The deceptive practices adopted by the allied forces created confusion within the ranks of the German army  a situation that was precipitated by the absence of trusted generals who were away from regular duty because they had to attend to other assignments. The difficulty in accurately predicting the attack site also made it difficult for Hitler to mobilize Germanys resources effectively to form a counter-attack on the allied troops as they advanced inland. He thought the enemies planned to create a decoy attack and execute another one in a different location. Despite being partly correct, the Germans did not know which locations would be the decoy and real targets. The inability to evaluate reliable information turned out to be one of Germanys biggest undoing in the war because allied forces were able to advance on their defenses by exploiting this weakness and providing a strong air and logistics support that could not be matched with a confused army (Delaney 2012). For example, American and Canadian forces used their aerial support to destroy key bridges that the Germans would have used to launch a counter-attack (History.com Editing Team 2019). Consequently, they were forced to take long detours as they prepared to confront the enemy  a process that compromised their effectiveness in responding to the attack.

The deceptive tactics used by the allied forces to defeat the Germans also extended to creating fake militaries as a distraction to scuttle the enemies. In one incident, the allied forces recalled General George Patton from Italy to oversee the operations of a fictitious military wing that was fronted as one that would spearhead the assault (Lamothe 2014). This phony military wing was created through meticulous planning by the soldiers and sufficient resources were deployed to carry out the deception. This trickery included using fake military tanks and equipment that were photographed to trick the Germans into believing they were going to strike from Pas de Calais, which is to the Northern part of France and a geographically closer location to allied countries. Figure 1 below shows the geographical positioning of Pas de Calais and Normandy where the actual attack occurred.

Broadly, the allied forces created several fake scenarios of attack to confuse the Germans and undermine their capability to defend themselves. In several instances, officers misadvised Hitler to formulate military strategies based on lies formulated by the allied forces.

The allied forces also engaged in further deceptive practices against the German military generals when they sent fake spy agents to generate false intelligence, which the enemies relied on to formulate their defense strategies. For example, they used Gen. Bernard Montgomery, a military intelligence officer, to travel to Gibraltar and inquire about the preparedness of the area for an attack by seeking data relating to defense and arsenal located in the region (Lamothe 2014). The collaborators knew that the Germans would hear about the incident and assume that they would attack from the Gibraltar side of the occupied territories but this turned out to be a wrong prediction on their part. Similarly, the Germans were fooled into believing that the Americans would have to involve Montgomery to carry out the attack but, again, this was not the plan (Lamothe 2014). The allied forces used timing variations to make the deception more believable because all the trickery described above happened one week before D-day (Lamothe 2014). This timing means that the allied forces wanted the German generals to rely on false intelligence to formulate ineffective military strategies too close to the attack date so that they would be unable to respond accordingly when the attack ultimately happened.

Lastly, unlike today where images and videos of war are shared through social media and other online platforms if a conflict of World War II-scale happened, the American public had no idea about the devastation of the D-day war. Therefore, there was no public opposition to the conflict, even though more than 90,000 Americans either died or were injured (Roos, 2019). The American public was never aware of this information until the war ended (Three-D History 2020). Part of the problem was the difficulty in relaying real-time information across continents, unlike today when information can be shared in seconds. Soldiers often wrote letters to officials and their loved ones to explain the war and its devastation but their words could not holistically capture the extent of the devastation (Chrisinger 2019). If such information were to be shared in real-time, as is the case today, most of the American public would have lost confidence in the war after seeing the high number of Americans that died as a result of an international conflict that had no direct roots to local socio-economic development. Therefore, the public was kept unaware of the aftermath of the battle and only generals and state agencies had information about the extent of human casualties that was witnessed.

Although the American public did not have information about the full extent of the human death toll attributed to D-day, the allied forces had accepted that the number of deaths would be staggering, especially during the initial phases of the conflict. However, they were willing to pay this price to establish an infantry in Western Europe and change the tide of the Nazi invasion on the continent. For example, it is reported that military generals informed Eisenhower that they would lose up to 75% of their paratroopers during the initial phase of the conflict, and knowing these odds, the general still approved the war (National Archives Education Team 2020b). This action demonstrates that the allied forces knew about the devastation that would come from the war but their desire to fulfill their mission prevented them from giving up.

Overall, important information was kept away from the public and up to date, it is not accurately known how many allied soldiers died during the conflict. The unawareness of the American public regarding such type of information fueled the war and eventually led to the defeat of the axis forces. To gain a better understanding of the importance of gaining public trust in sustaining a war, it is pertinent to examine events that happened when American forces landed in Somalia, East Africa, in the early 1990s on humanitarian grounds. They lost the legitimacy of the war after images of dead Americans being dragged on the streets were screened in the United States.

Morale

Part of the onslaught of the allied forces on Germany and the axis alliance was successful because of the high levels of motivation the soldiers received from the president. Particularly, the supreme commander of the allied forces, Dwight Eisenhower, made a deliberate attempt to improve the morale of his soldiers by sending positive communications about the progress made in the war (National Archives 2019). For example, he sent a cable to another general, George Marshal, regarding the successes made in the D-day landing and informed them of the high spirits of the soldiers during the war  almost to signify that they are on-course and working towards defeating the enemy (National Archives Education Team 2020e). In the communication, Eisenhower said that though he did not have all communications regarding the actual landing through beach obstacles, initial progress reports were satisfactory (National Archives Education Team 2020e). The cable communication went to address the casualties recorded from the assault and the advancements made in enemy territory. For instance, part of the communication read, Preliminary bombings by air went on as scheduled. The Navy report sweeping some mines but so far, known channels are clear and the operation is progressing according to plan. (National Archives Education Team 2020e). The letter further went on to detail the progress made with worsening weather conditions that led to the delay of the onslaught that was supposed to happen on June 5, 1944.

The cable communication by Eisenhower provided a detailed understanding of the effects of the weather changes and gave the generals sureties that in the next phase of the attack, conditions for assault would improve. In this statement, Eisenhower was providing a status report to the generals to motivate them by giving them positive information that would encourage them to stay on course (Chrisinger 2019). Furthermore, Eisenhowers order of the day, which was issued on June 6, 1944, also affirms the role of effective leadership and group morale in implementing strategic military plans that eventually led to the defeat of the Germans. In the issue, Eisenhower said:

You are about to embark upon the greatest crusade, towards which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you. In company with our brave allies and brothers-in-arms on other fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed people of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world. (National Archives Education Team 2020a)

In the above statement, Eisenhower motivates his troops in a clear statement that reinforces the purpose of the mission. Additionally, he lifts the spirits of the soldiers as they go to battle and reassures them that the spirit of peace-loving people is with them (National Archives Education Team 2020d). The mention of liberty and hope motivated them to remain faithful to their mission, which was to eliminate Nazi tyranny. This goal was embedded in the soldiers minds as they embarked on the battle and it equally played a significant role in making the allied forces victorious.

The timing of the above-mentioned Eisenhower letter also reinforces the fact that he was trying to have a maximum positive effect on the soldiers morale before they went to battle. This is because it was issued to them as they were stepping into their different modes of transport across the crossover channel to Normandy. Lastly, Eisenhower reassured his soldiers and the American public, through a letter, that he would be held personally responsible for the mission if it failed (National Archives Education Team 2020b). This type of conviction lifted the soldiers spirits before the invasion, as they understood that their commander-in-chief was as involved in the mission as they were.

Meticulous Planning and Execution

One of the main reasons for the success of D-day was the meticulous planning and execution of military strategies by the allied forces during the conflict. To demonstrate this point, it is pertinent to focus on the events that happened on D-day landings, which included a collection of attack strategies from the land, sea, and air. This attack was seen as a sophisticated bout of violence meted against the Germans because it provided them little room to launch a counter-attack (History.com Editing Team 2019). This outcome was guaranteed through effective planning by allied forces, which culminated in an amphibious assault on June 6, 1944, in the wee hours of the morning. Thousands of paragliders and paratroopers were sent to enemy territories through a coordinated aerial assault that would strategically position the fighters on key strategic points on the beaches (Delaney 2012). They were situated on the ground, behind the enemy lines, to provide aerial support to ground forces, especially in forging a defensive master plan that saw them destroy bridges and exit roads, which were to be used by the enemy.

In the coordinated plans by British, Canadian, and American troops, the allied forces experienced surmountable opposition when taking over Normandy. The British and Canadian forces were at the forefront in securing these territories as the Americans were in protecting Utah (History.com Editing Team 2019). Although there were casualties from the allied forces, by the end of the assault, on June 6, 1944, the Germans realized that more than 150,000 troops from the allied forces had already set foot on the beaches and could not be effectively repulsed without them suffering serious casualties (Delaney 2012). This outcome was the result of meticulous planning by the allied forces, which made it difficult for the enemy to organize and forge a serious defense.

The success of the detailed planning processes that led to the defeat of the Germans on D-day also hinged on the sophistication of the allied forces. Particularly, the amphibious attack launched at sea that allowed soldiers to breathe underwater as they approached France made them undetectable to enemy forces (National Archives Education Team 2020c). The attack was to start at sea and end in-land  a blueprint that was successfully implemented. The allied forces also did enough practice and were well equipped for the attack. Some pieces of the literature suggest that as new soldiers were unloaded onto the beaches to fight the Germans, they had to crawl over the bodies of their dead colleagues and sustain the battle (Roos, 2019; History.com Editing Team 2019). By being focused on their mission, they sustained the pressure on their adversaries by bringing in more troops who swarmed the Germans and pushed the battle at least 300 yards in-land (History.com Editing Team 2019). It is further reported that on D-day, the allied forces had secured the Normandy beach and pushed the battle one more mile in-land (Roos, 2019). This outcome highlights the meticulous planning and tactical approaches adopted by the allied forces, which created the initial impetus for overcoming the German defense. In other words, they had a plan for addressing the retaliation from the Germans, which was pegged on resupplying the attack troops with more soldiers, thereby making it difficult for the axis forces to keep up. They went to these lengths to make sure they secure victory due to the assumption that the Germans were going to be a formidable opponent.

Overall, the findings of this study show that D-day was one of the deadliest wars to have occurred in human history and is decisively one of the most consequential events to have impacted social and political order in the global society. Today, wars are different, in the sense that they are more scattered and less decisive, based on the complexity of issues that modern societies face today. However, the similarity between the wars fought today and those like D-day is that, in both of them, there is the belief that the outcome of the war should improve overall human wellbeing. It is a fight for a way of life and the dominance of commonly shared values and beliefs and about social order.

Conclusion

D-day is often celebrated in the United States because of its significance to the countrys contribution towards the end of the Second World War. For example, most of the past anniversaries have strived to reflect the successes of the time by exposing the secrets of the United States and Europes military collaboration and in some quarters, praise the post-recovery efforts of France. Although most of the initial celebrations of D-day were premised on celebrating the achievements of the allied forces during the Second World War, more recent commemorations have marked a new beginning in the development of American foreign and domestic policies.

Broadly, over the years, the significance of D-day has been confined to understanding the state of relationships within the transatlantic region and a conduit for reviewing the social, political, and economic progress made in Europe within the last century. As the number of veterans who took part in D-day continues to decline, recent attempts at understanding the significance of D-day to American culture have been made more to be about the present as opposed to past times. To this end, this paper demonstrates that the success of D-day is historically significant to America and the allied forces due to the organization, planning, and execution of military strategies by collaborators.

Bibliography

Delaney, Kate. 2012. The Many Meanings of D-Day. European Journal of American Studies 7 (2): 1-11.

National Archives. 2019. D-Day. Archives. 2020. Web.

National Archives Education Team. 2020a. General Eisenhowers Order of the Day. Docs Teach. 2020.

National Archives Education Team. 2020b. In Case of Failure Message. Docs Teach.

National Archives Education Team. 2020c. Sketch of a D-Day Platoon Leaders Dress. Docs Teach. 

National Archives Education Team. 2020d. Draft of Eisenhowers Order of the Day. Docs Teach. 

National Archives Education Team. 2020e. Cable from General Dwight D. Eisenhower to General George C. Marshall Regarding D-day Landings. Docs Teach. 

Chrisinger, David. 2019. The Man Who Told America the Truth about D-Day. The New York Times, Web.

History.com Editing Team. 2019. D-Day. History. Web.

Lamothe, Dan. 2014. Remembering the Military Secrecy and Lies That Made D-Day Successful. The New York Times, Web.

Roos, Dave. 2019. How Many Were Killed on D-Day? History. Web.

Three-D History. 2020. Operation Overlord. 3D History. Web.

Introduction

The Battle of Britain was the first large-scale military campaign in history to be fought exclusively in the air. It was part of World War II with the Royal Air Force (RAF) defending the United Kingdom (UK) against attacks by the German air force, Luftwaffe. The battle took place between July 10 and October 30, 1940, and contrary to what many analysts believed, the RAF won against a seemingly formidable German side, the Luftwaffe.

The major contributing factor of the battle was the view that from the very beginning of World War II, Hitler wanted a peace treaty or neutrality with Britain. In other words, Germany wanted Britain not to interfere with its ventures in Europe as it sought to expand its territories. Lord Halifax, the then British Foreign Secretary together with some section of the British public supported the idea of an armistice.

However, Prime Minister Winston Churchill, with the support of the majority of members of his cabinet opposed this idea (Bungay, 2000). Therefore, Hitlers only option was to invade Britain and force it into an agreement. With the surrender of France to the Germans on June 22, 1940, the focus turned to England. The choice to use air attacks was informed by the logistical nightmare that Germany would face by launching seaborne attacks because Britain, through its Royal Navy, controlled the entire North Sea and the English Channel. As such, an air attack, which characterized the Battle of Britain, was the only viable option at the time for Germans.

Research Objectives

This papers objectives are:

• To discuss air strategy applied by Royal Air Force (RAF) and Luftwaffe in the battle.
• To identify the implications of air strategy by both forces to the battle.
• To highlight lessons that can be learned from the military strategy for the current operating environment and future operations.

Strategy Applied by RAF to Counter Luftwaffes Air Threat

RAFs strategy to counter the seemingly formidable Luftwaffe was a combination of military maneuvers including the novel Dowding system, robust intelligence gathering, and various tactics, such as v-shaped fighter formations. However, the most significant strategy by RAF was the use of the hitherto unknown Dowding system. Before the start of World War II, the RAF had started building radar stations along its coast to detect, track aircraft, and send early warnings in case of an invasion.

These stations were known as Chain Home and they were the first early warning radar systems at the time (Neale, 1985). However, the transfer of information from these CH radar networks to aircraft was slow and ineffective, and thus fighters mostly missed their targets. Therefore, RAF created the Dowding system whereby a set of reporting chains were established to deliver timely and accurate information from the CH radars to combat pilots in their fighters.

Data collected from the various CH observation points would be relayed directly to the Fighter Command Headquarters, where it would be processed to inform decision-making. Through telephone, the useful information would be forwarded to the Group headquarters, and it would be used to recreate the attack maps. This process would be repeated in different areas, thus giving the Group level commanders the precise information needed to select squadrons suitable for a given target.

Ultimately, Sector operators would guide fighters on how to arrange an interception, neutralize the enemy, and return to base. At the same time, anti-aircraft batteries were put in place whereby an army officer, seated beside every fighter controller, would give instructions to gun crews on when to open fire (Price, 1980). This precise coordination of air attacks from the ground captures the essence of the Dowding system and with improved flow of useful information, air fighters acted with speed and accuracy to intercept their targets.

Robust intelligence gathering, specifically by intercepting the Enigma cipher used by Germans was another part of RAFs strategy to defeat Luftwaffe. RAF would intercept and decode high-level encrypted communications by the enemy to ultimately give British commanders an inside view of what Germans were planning. Specifically, the information gathered, which was designated ultra, allowed high-level British commanders to estimate the strength and composition of the enemy formations and objectives set by the Germans coupled with providing early warnings of raids in some cases (Winterbotham, 1975). As the battle progressed, the No. 421 (Reconnaissance) Flight RAF was constituted specifically to search and relay information about the formation of Luftwaffe aircrafts approaching England for an appropriate response.

Additionally, RAF used different tactics to counter the Luftwaffes attempts to reach England. The first tactic was to modify the inherently vulnerable v-shaped fighter formations where three aircraft would fly in a V-shape formation with the squadron leader in the front. This formation was weak because apart from the squadron leader, the rest of the fighters could not see the enemy and their first objective was to maintain their positions. Therefore, an adjustment was made to allow two aircraft to fly independently behind or above the v-shaped formation for improved observation and anterior protection (Price, 1980). Additionally, squadrons were deployed on a need basis to intercept raids by attacking incoming bombers continually to the point of breaking the tight Luftwaffe formation using a combination of Hurricanes and Spitfires.

Strategy used by Luftwaffe against RAF

The Germans adopted an ineffective battle strategy that while it had worked in other places in Poland, Belgium, and France, it failed in the Battle of Britain. First, Barley (2004) notes that Germany lacked clear military tasks, and thus planning became a problem. Consequently, instead of focusing on aircraft that could deliver the best results, the focus shifted to the ones that could be availed quickly.

Additionally, Hitler, as the head of the armed forces, practiced a dictatorial form of leadership, and thus he was surrounded by sycophants who could not question his decisions even if when on the wrong. The Luftwaffes strategy in this battle was entirely based on Germanys air doctrine hinged on the ideas of the Chief of the Air Command Office, Major General Walter Wever. As Barley (2004) posits, Wever believed that the Luftwaffe should not engage in wars on its own; on the contrary, it was supposed to offer support to the army and the navy. Consequently, Luftwaffe was not fully prepared for the Battle of Britain, which was purely an airborne encounter.

Therefore, Luftwaffe did not have a clear strategy on how to attack Britain. It thus relied on past experiences in Poland and Western Europe whereby airstrikes were used mainly to support ground troops. Additionally, Luftwaffe did not have ground support for its fighter pilots unlike the case with the RAF. As such, one bomber, Luftflotte 2, would attack Britain from southeast England and London. Luftflotte 3 and Luftflotte 5 would attack Wales, northwest England, and Midlands on the one side, and Scotland and North England, respectively. As part of its strategy, Luftflotte 3 would carry out attacks during the night while Luftflotte 2 would focus on the daytime (Bungay, 2000).

It was estimated that RAF would be subdued in four days, which would be followed by a one-month offensive to demolish all military installations in Britain. However, the leading commanders in executing the plan differed on the best way to implement the strategy with one side preferring the bombing of air defense infrastructure, while the other side opted for attacking London directly. This indecision negatively affected Luftwaffes ability to launch any meaningful assault against the RAF.

Additionally, tactics on the battlefront kept on changing due to the underlying unpreparedness. Initially, Luftwaffe deployed two-pack fighters flying at a distance of about 200 meters between them. This formation allowed the pilots to focus on hitting their targets as opposed to maintaining their positions. However, this formation was changed to address the arising challenges caused by the RAF fighters. When on the defensive, the Luftwaffe aircraft would form a defensive circle with each guarding the tail of the aircraft ahead. Unfortunately, the ever-changing formation during attacks led to massive losses (Bungay, 2000).

Ultimately, the commanders settled on one tactic whereby one aircraft would go before the bombers to draw out the RAF fighters, but this strategy failed because, with the Dowding system, the RAF could easily determine the Luftwaffe formation.

The Impact of Strategies used by RAF and Luftwaffe on the Battle

The differing strategies employed by the two sides directly contributed to the battles outcome. On the one side, the RAF was highly organized, and with ground support for its fighters through the Dowding system, its precision in hitting targets and intercepting the enemy improved significantly. The robust Dowding system ensured that RAF had the right information at the right time to act swiftly and counter any assault from the Luftwaffe. Even when four radar stations of the Dowding system were attacked on August 12, 1940, three of them resumed working in less than six hours (Bungay, 2000). Therefore, the RAF continued to collect vital information through its CH radars before being processed and relayed to fighters for a highly organized operation.

On the other hand, Luftwaffe was unprepared for exclusive air combat because initially, Hitler thought that Britain would agree to an armistice. Therefore, the Germans lacked a comprehensive plan on how to proceed when it became clear that Britain would not back down. As Barley (2004) argues, The impact upon the Luftwaffe of Hitlers ambivalent attitude towards Britain was some confusion over the tactical and technical orientation that the Luftwaffe should adopt (p. 398).

Additionally, Hitler was dictatorial even in leading the armed forces, and thus there was little room for making adjustments to address the situation at hand. Grattan (2005) summarizes Luftwaffes strategic failure by saying, The prime principle of war is selection and maintenance of the aim and another principle is the concentration of force. However, the German high command adhered to neither during this battle (p. 1435). The overreliance on past successes in Poland, Belgium, and France gave Luftwaffe a false sense of achievement, which led to widespread unpreparedness.

Therefore, because the RAF was highly organized with clear goals and an execution plan, it won the battle. The RAF was not a superior air force to Luftwaffe  it only won because it had a better strategy and with sound military and political leadership as offered by Churchill, it defeated a seemingly formidable Luftwaffe side. The difference between winning and losing during this battle was purely a question of the strategy used. Even with superior capabilities and resources to the RAF, Luftwaffe failed mainly due to poor strategic planning.

Basic Military Strategies

Various basic military strategies could be used to disarm the enemy or diminish the resolve to fight. The basic strategies considered in this section include extermination, exhaustion, annihilation, intimidation, and subversion. Extermination in this context is used to describe a strategy to annihilate the enemy. According to Bowdish (2013), this strategy is rarely used because on top of being amoral to kill everyone on the enemys side, it is against modern international laws on human rights. However, in ancient times, this strategy was used absolutely or selectively depending on the nature of the target.

In modern times, the Holocaust serves as a good example of this strategy as Hitler and his Nazi adherents sought to exterminate Jews. The strategy of exhaustion is based on the idea that gradual erosion of the enemys power would eventually break the will to resist or fight. This approach is mainly used by the weaker side in a war as it does not require the use of excessive force. However, the side deploying this strategy should be prepared to persevere and have the unparalleled resolve to win.

The strategy of annihilation sets out to attack the armed forces and destroy them and to impose the will of the conqueror on the conquered (Delbrück, 1990, p. 109). This strategy is based on the assumption that the enemy will resist as long as the means to do so exist, and thus the best way to win under such circumstances is to overcome and disarm the enemy. On the other hand, the strategy of intimidation involves compelling the enemy to agree on something or deterring the enemy from a certain action by using threats of violence. In other words, the enemy is bullied into agreeing to a predetermined course without engaging in a real fight.

Finally, under the strategy of subversion, the aggressor seeks to undermine the loyalties of people on the enemys side to transfer their allegiance. Once supporters allegiances are swayed and their support for the enemy is weakened, the aggressor could easily achieve the set objectives without much resistance from the enemy. According to Bowdish (2013), this strategy is a high reward-low cost approach as it can potentially return a political objective, anywhere from a favorable trade policy up to the political control of an entire state, at the cost of the establishment and maintenance of influence agents and propaganda institutions (p. 230). This strategy was widely applied during the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union with each side using propaganda to sway the enemys support base.

Basic Military Strategies Applied by RAF and Luftwaffe

The first strategy applied by both sides during this battle was a combination of subversion and intimidation. Both Britain and Germany resorted to propaganda before even the war could start officially. For instance, Luftwaffe carried small daylight raids against RAF as a way of testing the enemys resolve and intimidating Britain into an armistice. In response, Britain leveraged the media to increase news coverage on airstrikes. Radio channels, newspapers, magazines, and all other available means of communication were filled with news about the adventures and achievements of the Air Ministry (Campion, 2008). Germany responded similarly, and through its OKW communiqués, it spread the news that it had the upper hand against Britain.

Before the start of the war, Germans used intimidation extensively by relying on their past successes particularly in France. Hitler wanted an armistice with Britain and thus he resorted to threats of violence if his demands were not met. After defeating France on June 22, 1940, Hitler issued a series of threats and demands stating what he wanted and promising that an armistice would avert any form of physical aggression against Britain. This strategy almost worked because the British Foreign Secretary and some sections of the public supported a peace deal with Germany. However, Churchill together with his cabinet was opposed to the idea of an armistice, which leads to the next strategy, annihilation.

After it became clear that Britain would not agree to a peace deal, Germans started preparing for a military confrontation with the objective of annihilation. This strategy had worked elsewhere in Europe with Hitler emphasizing that each country needed to be taken quickly and decisively to present a fait accompli to frustrate any potential intervention by outside powers (Bowdish, 2013, p. 218). In the Battle of Britain, Hitler sought to subdue British forces, and impose his will on Britons by ultimately making Britain part of his protectorate, which is the underlying concept of annihilation as a basic military strategy.

Conclusion

The Battle of Britain, as the pioneer air military confrontation, presents numerous lessons that could be applied in the current environment and future operations. The first lesson is to never underestimate the enemy regardless of size or experience. Hitler was blinded by his past successes in France and other parts of Europe and thought that he would easily conquer Britain. The Germans thus underestimated Britains capabilities, which led to unpreparedness.

The second lesson is that strategic preparedness is an important part of any military undertaking because this aspect could be the deciding factor of win or lose as seen in the Battle of Britain. While Germans were superior to their enemy on almost all fronts including resources and experience, they lacked strategic planning. Hitler lacked clear objectives perhaps due to the assumption that Britons would be intimidated into an armistice.

On the other side, despite being inferior, Britain leveraged clinical strategic planning to improve efficiency and derive maximum utility from the available limited resources. The use of the Dowding system was part of this strategic planning and the concerted coordination of ground and air support proved to be one of the key determining factors of winning this battle. The third lesson is that everything rises or falls on leadership.

On the one hand, Hitler was a dictator and thus he was unwilling to listen to any advice from those experienced enough to see flaws in his strategies. This kind of poor leadership permeated every level of the military leading to unwarranted disagreements over what strategy to be applied in different situations. On the other hand, Churchill offered the needed leadership by separating politics from military ventures. He was willing to listen to military commanders and make the appropriate changes as part of strategic planning. Ultimately, RAF triumphed over a seemingly formidable Luftwaffe and these lessons could be applied today and in the future.

References

Barley, M. P. (2004). Contributing to its own defeat: The Luftwaffe and the Battle of Britain. Defense Studies, 4(3), 387-411.

Bowdish, R. G. (2013). Military strategy: Theory and concepts [Doctoral Dissertation]. University of Nebraska  Lincoln.

Bungay, S. (2000). The most dangerous enemy: A history of the Battle of Britain. Aurum Press.

Campion, G. (2008). The good fight: Battle of Britain wartime propaganda and the few. Palgrave Macmillan.

Delbrück, H. (1990). History of the art of war (J. Walter & Jr. Renfroe, Trans.). University of Nebraska Press.

Grattan, R. F. (2005). Strategy in the Battle of Britain and strategic management theory. Management Decision, 43(10), 1432-1441.

Neale, B. T. (1985). CH  The first operational radar. The GEC Journal of Research, 3(2), 73-83.

Price, A. (1980). The hardest day: 18 August 1940. Charles Scribners Sons.

Winterbotham, F. W. (1975). The Ultra secret. Futura Publications.

Introduction

The WW I is considered one of the most devastating and horrible military conflicts in the history of humanity, which resulted in the creation of the new world order and the collapse of numerous states and empires. The new weapons and strategies contributed to the increased cruelty and led to millions of victims. Yet, the given conflict was triggered by a set of various reasons and interests of the dominant states, which tried to consolidate their advantage (Causes and Consequences of World War I, n.d.). The given site could provide general information about the main causes and consequences of WWI. The information is supported by detailed descriptions and maps, which contribute to a better understanding of the political situation and the aftermath of this great military conflict of the 20th century. The source could be recommended for people who want to obtain general information about the causes of WWI.

World War I (1914-1918)

The given military conflict became the first great event of the 20th century. The worlds most powerful states were involved in the opposition and tried to protect their interests or guarantee the survival of the nation. Yet, the term World War is also used to emphasize the scale of the conflict and its overwhelming impact on the evolution of states all over the world. America had a history of noninvolvement in European wars (World War I (1914-1918), n.d.); however, the state was not able to ignore the given confrontation because of the threat posed by Germany and its submarines. In this regard, the USA entered a war and became a significant factor. The given site delves into the American contribution to the development of this conflict and military operations performed by the US army. It could be recommended as a credible source to investigate the given aspect of history.

Nationalism, Imperialism, and WWI

Considering the character of WWI and the number of states involved in the opposition, it is impossible to state the only reason which triggered the development of the conflict. Additionally, there is no certain state which could be accepted as the initiator of the given confrontation. The fact is that the political situation at the beginning of the 20th century promoted the aggravation of international relations and increased tension (Nationalism, Imperialism, and WWI, n.d.). Furthermore, imperialism and nationalism of the leading powers contributed to the appearance of new interests that predetermined the reconsideration of the existing world order. The given site considers these two phenomena as the main causes of war and tends to trace their development. The source could provide the relevant information related to the grounds of German nationalism and imperialism and the peculiarities of its evolution.

The Rise of the Militarists

The rapid changes in the mentality of people and the evolution of the new perspective on the development of a certain society called militarism are also considered the important causes of war. The industrial potential of the dominant states promoted the reconsideration of priorities and acceptance of war as the only possible way to guarantee the further growth of a certain nation (The Rise of the Militarists, n.d.). In this regard, WW I seemed inevitable as it was taken as the only way to attain success and obtain extra powers. The site analyzes the shifts in peoples mentality and the major concerns related to the development of militarism in terms of a certain state. It also tends to draw a parallel between the rise of German militarism and the outbreak of war, which resulted in the collapse of this very militarist society.

References

Causes and Consequences of World War I. (n.d.). Web.

Nationalism, Imperialism, and WWI. (n.d.). Web.

The Rise of the Militarists. (n.d.). Web.

World War I (1914-1918). (n.d.). Web.

Introduction

The United States involvement in the Iraq war has been a matter of international attention for over the last one decade. The issue of the Iraq war has been revisited time over time in reference to the various issues it has led to globally. Recently, the war in Iraq has been blamed for various issues including the recent spike in incidences of terrorism and the upsurge of Islamic State, the infamous terror organization. The Iraq war dates back to 2003 when President George W. Bush led the invasion of the United States troops in Saddam Husseins Iraq.

The first invasion of the European troops into the United States was dubbed the Iraqi Freedom Operation although other observers have referred to it as the Third Gulf War. on 20^th March 2003, the then President of the United States George Bush declared the mission into Iraq a success and made the declaration Mission Accomplished. Nevertheless, the conflict in Iraq dragged on for more than a century with heavy casualties on both sides of the conflict.

By the year 2011, independent analysts estimated that between 103,103 and 112,571 Iraq civilians had died in the violence&at least 250,000 Iraq civilians were wounded, and 4,483 deaths and 32,219 injuries within the American army (Roberts, Lafta, Garfield, Khudhairi, & Burnham, 2004, p. 1859). The war also displaced millions of individuals and created refugees throughout Syria, Europe, Jordan, and the United States. It has been noted that the Iraq War was started under false pretences and its actual causes go beyond the obvious reasons for the conflict. The war also follows a precedence that was set by earlier invasion into Iraq where war was declared as a preventive war. This essay addresses the causes and effects of the Iraq war.

Overview of Causes of the Iraq War

The main driving force behind the war in Iraq was an upsurge in global terrorism, which culminated in the September 11 terrorist attacks in America. Consequently, the United States and other Western countries were worried about the proliferation of dangerous weapons into the hands of terrorists. During the pre-Iraq war era, countries were not quite sure about how to deal with terrorists because they were non-state aggressors. America reacted to this problem by invading countries where these terrorists were supposedly hiding.

These invasions ignored the fact that the invaded countries had not expressed their outright support for terrorist groups and this is how Afghanistan ad Iraq became easy targets. For instance, in a State of the Union address to the country, President Bush declared that his government was not going to differentiate between terrorist groups and nations which harbor or arm them (Herman, 2008, p. 30). In the early 2000s, Afghanistan was considered to be the hiding place and training ground of the Al-Qaeda terrorist group, which was Americas number one enemy.

The threat posed by Iraq in 2003 was believed to be as a result of two main factors. First, there was some evidence that although Iraq did not shelter Al-Qaeda, President Saddam Hussein was facilitating training of terrorist elements that were in war with the sovereign governments of Turkey and Iran. Second, during the start of the Iraq war there were strong suspicions that Saddam Hussein was in the process of manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. For instance, several groups had gone to Iraq to investigate the rumors about Saddam developing weapons of mass destruction. The major fear for the United States government was that weapons of mass destruction under Saddam would be proliferated to terrorist organizations that would in turn attack the United States. Collins Powell the then Secretary of State in the United States outlined the reasons why the country was invading Iraq through a statement that was presented to the United Nations (UN).

Unofficial Causes of the War

There were several unofficial reasons why the United States was so keen on invading Iraq by all means necessary. The main informal reason for the war in Iraq was the fact that defeating Saddam Hussein would have sent a strong message against detractors of American dominance. Most high ranking officials within the American government felt that defeating Saddam Hussein in his own turf would send a strong message to those who felt that the 9/11 attacks were a testament that the United States was a weak target. Strategists were of the view that invading Iraq would maintain uni-polarity, maintain hegemony, and avoid post 9/11 decline by demonstrating the Unites States willingness to use force (McKoy & Lake, 2011, p. 29).

The issue of oil interests in Iraq has also been explored in relation to the

Iraq invasion. There are those who feel that the Iraq invasion was long-time coming as a result of growing unease over Saddams hold on the second largest oil reserves. Although oil was not a direct interest for the United States during the Iraq invasion, the resource made the target country an influential player in the Middle East (Ender, 2010). The United States might have hoped that if it succeeded in influencing policies in Iraq, the rest of Middle East would catch up. The other unofficial reason why the United States was invading Iraq was that by knocking out the biggest Middle Eastern powerhouse, the Bush government would be in a position of influencing policy-making in the entire region through intimidation and coercion (Gilley, 2013).

Over time, Iraq had become a major thorn in the United States flesh owing to a number of historical disagreements between the two countries. During these earlier disagreements, it had become clear that Iraq was a stable country that could easily withstand the threats by the United States. For instance, the conflict in 2003 was the third time that military conflict between the two countries was occurring. Observers note that some of the policymakers in Bushs administration were seen to have unfinished business with Iraq because they had been involved in some of these earlier conflicts. For example, Neo-conservatives in the Bush administration such as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney have always been thought to have harbored grudges against Saddam Hussein (Herman, 2008, p. 30).

Opposition to the War

Not all parties were in support of the Iraq war and its intentions both within the United States and across the world. Consequently, there were several oppositions against the Iraq war from the time of its inception. Although Britain had pledged its full support for the Iraq war, most of its citizens were opposed to the war. Statistics indicate that approximately 70-90% of the European population was opposed to the Iraq war (Debs & Monteiro, 2014). Demonstrations were held in London where citizens felt that the government was not acting on their behalf. In the United States, critics who included then Congressman Barrack Obama were not given any listening space by the government. The US government also reacted quite harshly to opposition against the Iraq war and at times treated critics of the war like terrorists.

Another strong opposition against the war came from the Vatican where the Pope was concerned about the welfare of the ordinary citizens who would be caught up in the war. At one point, the Vatican through Pope John Paul II sent two Cardinals to try and convince both Presidents Bush and Saddam Hussein. Nevertheless, most Evangelical Protestants were behind President Bush because they had been led to believe that the war was in a bid to defeat terrorism thereby protecting freedom of religion. The Allies including the UK and Australia were firmly behind the war despite the protests of their citizens.

Conclusion

The Iraq war was as a result of various factors some of which are obvious while others require deeper investigations. The causes of war are also unrelated events that lined up to culminate into the Iraq war. Saddam Husseins link to terrorist elements and his ambitions for having weapons of mass destruction made him an easy target for the Bush administration. The fact that Afghanistan had recently fallen and the Taliban had been presumed defeated made Iraq the only other logical target in the United States blatant display of military power. It is important to note that most of the initial suspicions towards Saddam Hussein and Iraq in general never materialized. Consequently, no weapons of mass destruction were ever found in Iraq and there was never any proof that Saddam had any connections to the Al-Qaeda.

References

Debs, A., & Monteiro, N. P. (2014). Known unknowns: power shifts, uncertainty, and war. International Organization, 68(01), 1-31.

Ender, M. G. (2010). War causes and consequences. Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, 39(4), 399-402.

Gilley, B. (2013). Using a virtual history conference to teach the Iraq War. Journal of Political Science Education, 9(2), 222-235.

Herman, A. (2008). Why Iraq was Inevitable. Commentary, 126(7), 28-36.

McKoy, M. K., & Lake, D. A. (2011). Bargaining theory and rationalist explanations for the Iraq war. Political Science Education, 5(2), 22-35.

Roberts, L., Lafta, R., Garfield, R., Khudhairi, J., & Burnham, G. (2004). Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey. The Lancet, 364(9448), 1857-1864.

Introduction

Pacific theater of World War II is also referred to as the Asia Pacific War. The Japanese first dealt with the Pearl Harbor, it was then that they were able to obtain power in such a way that they could control the areas around the Pacific Ocean and the areas of Far East. The War is thought to have started in the year 1937 but is said to have officially been declared in 1941 and lasted till 1946. This war was caused by the Japanese when they surprised the whole world through their bombing of Pearl Harbor in Hawaii¹. It was then that the president of America by then Roosevelt delivered an infamy speech in which he declared a war against the Japanese and few days latter the Congress of the United States declared war against the Germans as they were also supporting the Japanese. It came a time when Japanese felt that hey had all the rights to defend the Pacific because they depended in a number of ways. Some of the other countries also interested with the ocean the British Empire who invaded through Malaya, the United States, Netherlands and France. The four Empires were against Japanese as each had some interest in controlling the ocean and especially the Pacific Islands.

Although the Japanese lacked enough power in terms of equipments such that they lacked in the transport system thus it was difficult give enough protection to all the points that they were interested in they had an advantage over the opponent countries in that they had access to interior communication infrastructure and thus they knew that was the only way to prevent the other opponent countries outdoing them. They therefore organized various attacks to the opponent nations so as to defend the ocean which was a source of sustenance such as in the United States, the Philippines among all the others.

A raid that remains in the history was on Pearl Harbor and happened on December seventh the year 1941. The attack was carried out by the Japanese government against the United States military when they felt that United States was posing a threat to them from the southern direction. The Japanese refer to it as the Hawaii Operation or Operation Z. It was a well organized attacks that took the Americans by surprise whereby the attacking planes came in two waves which were separated by a one hour gap. It was in such a way that the first hit at 7.55 in the morning and by one oclock in the afternoon the planes were headed back after having accomplished the mission successfully². The attack destroyed a lot of battleships and planes for the Americans and making it worse, left over two thousand four hundred and three people dead. They then moved on to serious attacks to the on the Americans to totally jeopardize their efforts of winning the battle.

Japanese Reasons and goals for Pearl Harbor Attack

There are various reasons that made the Japanese to attack the Pearl Harbor. One of the reasons is that they felt Japanese felt threatened by Americans and hence they saw the need to depend the southern. They therefore aimed at the American military so as to destroy them before the destroyed them and block them from taking over the East Indies and Malaya³. They knew that once the American were countered before they took control over the Dutch region they would in turn take time before they organize themselves for an attack.

The second reason is that they wanted to disorganize the Americans so that Japanese would have enough time to organize their forces and reposition their army so that and all the military equipments that they may require to defend the area including ship building⁴. The Japanese knew that if they do this they would have deprived the Americans any chance of outdoing them in the War. This also gave them assurance that they were save any the nationalists were assured of peace and continuous control of the sea. The attack would also be a blow that would leave Americans in a shock and they would therefore take time before they reestablished and organized their forces in order to fight back the Japanese.

The other reason was that they would demoralize the Americans army. The Americans would not want to engage in conflicts over the land on the Western Pacific Ocean. In order to achieve their objectives the Japanese decided to attack the battleships⁵. The destroyed battleships were the most well made of all the existing military forces of any place of the world and also the most esteemed, hence by destroyed them it was obvious that they would have disabled the Americans and would therefore penetrate to the Southeast Asia without many problems since the Americans would not play part in the conquest.

Another reason is that the Americans wanted to own all the oil resources in the Southern Asia; they wanted to stop the Japanese from conquering the southern part⁶. The Japanese knew that the Americans were not willing to enter into a war with the Japanese but since they were already forcing them to withdraw from china and Indochina, they knew that they were on their way to force them out from the Southern Asia thus they thought it necessary to fight them when they least expected it.

They also knew that since the ships were at the shores of the ocean then the Americans would take a short time in repairing them and hence may catch up with them⁷. They also knew that they did not have the right timing hence had to make those disadvantages strengths and take the opportunity to strengthen their army. They realized they could achieve more if they were able to cause all the destruction in a very short time and especially the battleships, they would also be able to cause more harm such assoil tans and submarine base because they could not be of urgent use incase they decided to enter into a war but would suffer and be inconvenienced when they least expect it⁸. They also destroyed the navy yard and the farms which they knew that the Americans would not think of as a first reaction.

The Height of Japans Power in the War

Japan was simply referred to as the Imperial Japan and was under the leadership of Emperor Showa. Their system was a form of constitutional monarchy whereby the overall leader was in full power and enjoyed the power in all decision makings having been enabled by the article 4 of the Japanese constitution of the time⁹. He was also the overall leader and the commander of the military forces assisted by two chiefs of staff who headed the Cabinet and the Imperial General Headquarters.

The Japanese enjoyed superiority over the Asians and the Pacific areas such as the islands and other areas surrounding the Pacific Ocean. Japanese had their islands; however the islands did not have natural resources which would have helped to raise the economy of the country which was not doing well since the 1920s. They therefore had to fifth to acquire what they lacked and hence the more reason why the conquered the pacific to be explicitly their own.

The Japanese constitution made them have policies that were unique and that separated them from other countries that surrounded them and those that were in the League of Nations¹⁰. They were only able to cope with two other countries that had similar policies and which allowed the leaders to enjoy the excess powers that would have risked the nation as a whole. In the middle of 1930s the Japanese thought it necessary to join powers with the Germans and Italy and organized to go against the Soviet Union so as to challenge them to a fight. They entered into various conflicts with the Chinese and by late 1941, they decided to sign a treaty with the Soviet Union which would help them avoid further wars or conflicts that were likely to come up in the struggle to acquire the most resources.

Japanese struggled to own some colonies when the European powers concentrated all their energies on war which was ongoing in Europe¹¹. When the Germans took over the France, the Japanese took the opportunity and took over French Indochina which the then emperor known as Vichy France did not object. During the same time China and the United States were very much involved in fighting against Japanese. It was after a time that they discovered that they were incapacitated since they did not have enough oil to take them through the fight, food supply was also an issue to the as the farms were destroyed hence the food reserves were not sufficient. Another problem they faced was that of scrap metals and it also proved difficult to carry on with the trade due to insecurity.

By the year 1943, the Americans had managed to organize their forces and were able to full fights back forcing the Japanese to their Islands¹². They tried to force the Japanese to surrender through incendiary bombs which would cause deaths of several hundreds of people but even then the Japanese were resistant. This war continued till there was the Hiroshima and the Nagasaki atomic bombing by the Americans which took place in 1945. This kind of bombing has never been used anywhere else in the world and within a very short time which is thought to have lasted in a matter of minutes. Around 200 000 people were dead and the surviving ones were maimed. It destroyed almost everything in the areas which it was dropped. The aftermath is that many other people died in the remaining days and years and the nuclear radiations are still said to have an effect to this day. The Japanese government had no choice but to surrender which was announced by the ruling Emperor known as Emperor Hirohito when the Soviet Union officially enounced that they were going to engage in the war.

Although the Americans were got by surprise, they knew that the Japanese could react since they did bleach a treat they had. They knew there was some likeliness that the Japanese would declare a war against them but they underrated them and neither could they think of the magnitude of the effect. The warning that the Japanese were organizing an attack also arrived too late thus could almost rescue nothing in the situation¹³. They also could not think of Japanese engaging in a fight despite the fact that they lacked enough weapons and had insufficient forces.

There was also another sign that all was not well. The new radars which had come up as a result of technology had detected the Japanese planes in the air but ignored them. They assumed that the planes belonged to Americans and were coming from the West Coast. So although the attack got the Americans by surprise, they knew that the Japanese were not happy with them and were likely to attack them or maybe seek further intervention¹⁴. The Japanese also failed in that they did not sink much of the fuels that the United States required so as to reestablish themselves and thus they were able to catch up with them although they enjoyed the success of getting the Americans unawares and causing and destabilizing the Americans who were feared even as per the time.

The Turning Point in the War in the Pacific

The Americans managed to sink some of the most important carriers for the Japanese. They also killed many people and especially the aircrews which were really affecting the Japanese. Although this was not a major blow which led the Japanese to surrendering, this midway success for the Americans paralyzed their efforts of defeating them and they knew that in the long run they would have to give up¹⁵. The Americans were also able to acquire supplies which were quite expensive and which the Japanese would not afford.

The other major powers found the Geneva Convention important as it guided them on the relationship and on creating of a harmonious relationship with the other nations. Almost all of the major powers signed it while Japanese found it unnecessary. They therefore did all they could since they were not questionable to the other nations irrespective of the crimes they committed¹⁶. The Japanese therefore became careless and failed to oblige to any of the international laws thus breaking all the stipulated laws. The other nations were not pleased with the way the Japanese were acting hence they did not support them even when the Americans totally beat them. Their only support which was Germany was also totally beaten as the Americans were against them.

Most of the other nations joined hands into fighting the Japanese especially in 1943, when the Americans enjoyed unlimited supply of raw materials and other industrial goods while the Japanese could not get. Philippine commonwealth joined with the United States and formed Guerrilla units which were intended to further destroy the Japanese¹⁷. There was also a lot of campaign against the Japanese to further demoralize them and push them to surrendering the war which to this point they still could not do.

The Japanese military behaved like the Germany did in most ways especially the way they treated their prisoners. The death rate was particularly rising each day and they were not concerned with the welfare of the commoners. It is as a result of this disrespect to the human kind that they didnt care the extent to which the Pearl Harbor attack that led to the death of almost three thousand people¹⁸. They were blamed all over the world as being the cause of the Second World War which left the whole world destabilized in terms of the human value and in economic terms. It is for this reasons that the Japanese discovered that they would never be respected or supported by other nations hence they decided to surrender.

In 1944, the economy of the Japanese was so much affected. The Japanese were finding it difficult to continue supplying their army with all the necessities thus the performance of the army was also affected. The Americans on the other hand were able to supply their military with expensive weapons and all the necessities. They also closed all the strategic bases for the Japanese hence paralyzing the trade route and which consequently was a set back for the Japanese economy. Meanwhile the Americans marines had taken over Ogasawara Islands. This was also a big hit to the Japanese as their shipping routes were affected. It is one of the major factors that led to the fall of the Japanese.

Finally the Americans did the unexpected through their bombing of the Hiroshima and the Nagasaki which to this day remains historic and the only one to ever happen in any given nation. Although it is said that the Americans were inhuman and is blamed for the aftermath of the Atomic bomb in Japan, it was the only way that the Japanese would have been forced to end the war and it is at this point that the Japanese resigned from the war.

Many methods were employed in determining the fit of the Japanese and to forcing them to surrender such as through surface warships, the air carriers and other forces used including causing the psychological and the emotional problems caused to the Japanese¹⁹. It is however noted that there was no single method that called for decent talks or negotiations to prevent further harm to the affected nations and Japanese were also reluctant to give in to such talks.

Conclusion

In conclusion the Japanese managed to kill millions of innocent victims especially in China and committed many other crimes that set the other nations against them. It is for this reason that even after they successfully attacked the Pearl Harbor that the other nations came against them and hence when the United States declared war, they were left on their own. The Aftermath of the attack is still to be remembered as it led to the Americans using one of the most dangerous weapons the atomic bomb that left Japan in a devastating situation both economically and the effect it had to the human kind and all the living things then and in many years that were to come. Pearl Harbor attack however remains one of the most remembered attacks that Americans have ever faced and that shocked the world.

Bibliography

1. Bentley, John, H., Ziegler, Howard, F. and Streets, H. E. Traditions & Encounters: A Brief Global History, Volume II: From 1500 to the Present. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Humanities, 2004.
2. Brown, David. Warship Losses of World War Two. Annapolis, Maryland, Naval Institute Press, 1985.
3. Scheina, Robert, L. Pearl Harbor Raid, 7 December 1941: Overview and Special Image Selection. (1970).
4. U.S. ARMY CENTER OF MILITARY HISTORY. U.S. army Campaigns: WWII- Asiatic-Pacific Theater. (2009).
5. Weinberg, Green, L. A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II. Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Footnotes

1. U.S. ARMY CENTER OF MILITARY HISTORY. U.S. army Campaigns: WWII-Asiatic-Pacific Theater. (2009)
2. Weinberg, Green, L. A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II. Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press, 2004.
3. Bentley, John, H., Ziegler, Howard, F. and Streets, H. E. Traditions & Encounters: A Brief Global History, Volume II: From 1500 to the Present. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Humanities, 2004.
4. Scheina, Robert, L. Pearl Harbor Raid, 7 December 1941: Overview and Special Image Selection. (1970)
5. Brown, D. (1995) Warship Losses of World War Two. Annapolis, Maryland, Naval Institute Press.
6. Weinberg, Green, L. A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II. Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press, 2004.
7. U.S. ARMY CENTER OF MILITARY HISTORY. U.S. army Campaigns: WWII-Asiatic-Pacific Theater. (2009)
8. Scheina, Robert, L. Pearl Harbor Raid, 7 December 1941: Overview and Special Image Selection. (1970)
9. Brown, David. Warship Losses of World War Two. Annapolis, Maryland, Naval Institute Press, 1985.
10. Scheina, Robert, L. Pearl Harbor Raid, 7 December 1941: Overview and Special Image Selection. (1970)
11. Weinberg, Green, L. A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II. Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press, 2004.
12. Brown, David. Warship Losses of World War Two. Annapolis, Maryland, Naval Institute Press, 1985.
13. Bentley, John, H., Ziegler, Howard, F. and Streets, H. E. Traditions & Encounters: A Brief Global History, Volume II: From 1500 to the Present. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Humanities, 2004.
14. U.S. ARMY CENTER OF MILITARY HISTORY. U.S. army Campaigns: WWII-Asiatic-Pacific Theater. (2009)
15. Weinberg, Green, L. A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II. Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press, 2004.
16. Bentley, John, H., Ziegler, Howard, F. and Streets, H. E. Traditions & Encounters: A Brief Global History, Volume II: From 1500 to the Present. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Humanities, 2004.
17. Scheina, Robert, L. Pearl Harbor Raid, 7 December 1941: Overview and Special Image Selection. (1970)
18. U.S. ARMY CENTER OF MILITARY HISTORY. U.S. army Campaigns: WWII-Asiatic-Pacific Theater. (2009)
19. Brown, David. Warship Losses of World War Two. Annapolis, Maryland, Naval Institute Press, 1985.

WWI became one of the fundamental events in the history of humanity and its further evolution. It resulted in the millions of victims, radical changes in the world order, collapse and emergence of new states, and stimulated the evolution of science. Thus, the emergence and fast development of new arms became one of the most critical aspects of WWI, influencing its nature and results (Hardy 34). The revolution in firepower, the emergence of machine guns and the new type of artillery were not followed by the corresponding changes in troops mobility. It provided an advantage to the defending side and resulted in the emergence of trench warfare, which changed the nature of military manoeuvres and WWI.

The given conduct of operations became the major distinctive feature of this military conflict. Trench warfare was characterized by the broad use of occupied lines consisting of trenches guaranteeing better protection to troops (Bull 43). Because of the fast-evolving firearms, it was critical to create shelters from the artillery and machine guns; otherwise, soldiers could be easily killed. For this reason, the nature of battlers altered to adapt to new conditions. Troops stood against each other, occupying well-protected positions, with the extreme complexity and risks of any offensive operation.

In such a way, the revolution in firearms and their power resulted in new methods to resist them, known as the trench war. It became one of the most significant features of WWI. It guaranteed better protection, but, at the same time, this factor critically prolonged the conflict (Brose 111). The inability to attack well-protected lines suffering from the artillery strikes impacted the strategy and shifted priorities towards new methods, such as the invention of tanks, broader use of aviation, and chemical weapon.

Works Cited

Brose, Eric. A History of the Great War: World War One and the International Crisis of the Early Twentieth Century. Oxford University Press, 2009.

Bull, Stephen. Trench: A History of Trench Warfare on the Western Front. Osprey Publishing, 2014.

Hardy, Douglas. WWI Trench Systems (Wargames Terrain and Buildings). Pen and Sword Military, 2021.

Introduction

South Africa is not a country typically associated with active participation in the World War II today. Yet, without South African ports, thousands of Allies troops would not have reached the Middle East theatre. The notion of South Africas role in that conflict surprises many people, who believe that this country is too distanced to have been involved in a European war theatre. Although the army of South Africa may not have liberated Paris or captured Berlin, it still made a significant contribution, ignoring which would be a disservice to South Africas history.

In order to understand the importance of South Africa, it is important to know where it is situated. The country occupies the southernmost point of Africa, with a costal line stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Indian Ocean. This intersection is the reason why great powers were interested in South Africa historically. The crux of the matter is that the coastline is the most logical location to place seaports. Any country wishing to send or receive goods from India to South America would have to use the trade route passing near South Africa. As such, the region is extremely valuable in strategic terms.

At the start of the twentieth century, the British Empire occupied the region and thus took advantage of South Africas location. However, local population was not satisfied with the British rule, as anti-British sentiment was on the rise. This controversy became was especially evident at the start of the World War II. When the British Empire declared war on Nazi Germany in 1939, many people were opposed the idea of allying South Africa with the British Empire due to strong dislike of the crown. Some forces went so far as to actually support Germany.

As such, at the time of start of the World War II, there was no unity in South Africa. The nation found itself at a crossfire between pro-British forces and pro-German forces. The situation was further complicated by the fact that in both cases, it were white people who promoted their agenda. Black people as well as women were marginalized and had no interest in becoming involved in a war between other nations. Centuries of racial segregation underscored the lack of sympathy for the hardships of the British Empire. This controversy was used by pro-German forces, who took advantage of anti-war and anti-British sentiment, further dividing South African society.

Political Factors

At the start of World War II, South Africa was a dominion of British Empire. This status meant that nation was sovereign and could not be an object of the British Parliaments legislation. At the same time, the Union of South Africa was officially a part of the British Empire, with a King of the United Kingdom and British Dominions being its monarch as well. King George VI was represented by Governor-General, which was the highest-ranking office. However, in reality, Prime Minister of South Africa was the factual head of state. Subsequently, Governor-General had no real sway over the government of South Africa. As such, the Union of South Africa was independent of the United Kingdom.

The United Party, which was the ruling party of South Africa in 1939, harbored numerous politicians with an open anti-British sentiment, including Prime Minister J.B.M. Hertzog. The Parliament had a peculiar structure  the United Party was the majority party, but there was substantial political dissention within it. The reason for this is that the United Party was the result of merging of two opposing parties  the National Party under the leadership of Hertzog and the South African Party under Jan Smuts. Hertzogs followers were openly anti-British, while Smuts proponents favored connections with British Empire. It was inevitable than any serious foreign challenge would severely compromise the unity.

Hitlers invasion of Czechoslovakia became such a challenge for the party. When the British entered the war with the Nazi Germany, Hertzogs decision was to keep the Union away from the war. This was a highly debated decision, which led to Hertzogs resignation and Smuts succeeding him as Prime Minister. A vote was held on whether the Union should enter the war, with 80 PMs voting in favor and 67 against. The Union declared war on Germany and South Africa entered the conflict as a British Empires ally, even though it was by no means a unilateral decision.

Social and Economic Factors

The Union was significantly divided by opposition to British rule, racial conflicts, and nationalist sentiment. Many Afrikaners still remembered the Second Boer War, which caused them to view British Empire as the enemy. As South Africa declared war on Germany, nationalist forces opposed this decision, some of which saw World War II as yet another war on behalf of the British Empire. As a result, anti-British sentiment was the first factor underpinning the complexity of South African role in World War II.

Another complication was derived from nationalist feelings among South Afrikaners. In South Africa: A Country Study, Rita M. Byrnes writes that German National Socialism had garnered many Afrikaner admirers in the 1930s. The largest organization opposing South African participation in World War II was known as Ossewabrandwag. Dear and Foot write that at its peak it had 400,000 members and posed a considerable threat to the South African government. Furthermore, the organization encompassed a military wing, which was similar to the Nazi Partys Sturmabteilung. Known as stormjaers, they committed sabotage, blew up power lines, railroads, post offices and cut communication lines.⁴ Although not all nationalists were pro-Nazi, this dissention had to be considered by the government.

Finally, racism also played its role in the way South Africa participated in the war. Before the war, the doctrine of the white mans prestige was a cornerstone of white peoples influence in South Africa. The parliament that voted for the Unions entrance to war consisted of white-only members. Being aware of the political and racial contradictions in society Hertzogs successor as Prime Minister Jan Smuts, decided against compulsory conscription and in favor of a volunteer-based defense force.⁷ The way the government framed war became instrumental in how successful the recruitment campaign would be.

Mass media were in deficit in South Africa in 1930s. South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) was the major broadcaster in the country. However, it was technologically and informationally limited as it relied heavily on material from the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). As a result, any data surrounding military advances, German actions, and overall war progress, was sorted through British propaganda. Furthermore, there appears to have been a deliberate transmitter shortage in some regions of South Africa in the first months following the start of the war. Teer-Tomaselli argues that at the very time when anti-British, anti-war sentiment was at its highest, the entire Afrikaans listenership on the Witwatersrand, the heart of South Africa, was without a radio service. The majority of programming was in English, which further promoted pro-British agenda.

However firm their control over the news industry was, the government could not ignore the fact that it needed population, both black and white to keep working as well as serving. For example, according to Clark, mining accounted for well over 50 percent of South African government revenues. The bulk of the workforce consisted of low-paid African workers with extremely poor labor methods. The governments economy was extremely vulnerable even in peaceful periods. Yet, war demands make any worker strike a potential disaster. Technological advancements offered at least a partial solution to the problem of the workforces extreme dissatisfaction. However, the real economic boost came from the incorporation of womens labor into production, allowing it to expand. Smuts proceeded to establish new plants, implement standardized production and modernize equipment and machinery. Thus, the government managed to keep the highly divided population from descending into internal conflict, while strengthening the economy to supply war needs.

Military Strength and Capabilities

The most important contribution of South Africa was the steady supply of resources. Allied war effort required large amounts of iron, manganese, uranium, coal, platinum, and steel. However, South African engineers also devised their own armoured vehicle  Marmon-Herrington armour car. Thousands of these vehicles were produced, many of which became a part of the British military.

South Africas port infrastructure was vital to the Allies naval forces. First, the Allies in the India-Birma theatre received necessary supplies from South African ports. Second, South Africas geography once again became vitally important, when the Axis powers blocked access to the Mediterranean Sea. The only remaining way to reach Europe by sea was now through the Suez Canal. South African ports were essential in the routes used by British ships.

Military training was another way South Africa helped the Allies. Being located relatively far from the actual fighting, South Africa was a logical place for setting up training camps. Particularly, a number of air schools in South Africa trained both South African Air Force pilots and Royal Air Force pilots. Initially, the number of pilots did not exceed 5000, but within the period of one year, the number eclipsed 30 000. The practice gained in these schools allowed pilots to better prepare for actual combat.

The manpower of South Africa was severely limited in large part due to the absence of compulsory military conscription. Nevertheless, those soldiers that did enlist participated in engagements in North Africa, East Africa, Madagascar, Italy, the Balkans, and in the British skies. Mwanikii writes that A total of 334,000 South Africans volunteered to fight on all fronts. The most notable victory of South African forces transpired during the East African campaign, where Italian forces fought for Kenya, Ethiopia, Somalia, trying to achieve regional supremacy.

The most notorious defeat of South African forces happened at Tobruk in 1942. Tobruk is an important city in Libya on the coastline of the Mediterrenean Sea. A contingent of almost 35 000 troops comprised of British and South African forces was defeated by a joint Germany-Italian force. With tens of thousands people becoming prisoners, the loss of Tobruk was a severe blow to the Allies, yet it also showcased participation of Afrikaners in the World War II.

Another task the South Africa performed was the preparedness to fight off a Japanese invasion. Although in reality, Japan never really attacked South Africa, this possibility forced the Allies to protect the waters near South Africa. This became an appropriate defense precaution, as in 1942, German submarines attacked vehicles in Cape waters. However, a more evident counter measure by the allies was the liberation of Madagascar, which was controlled by Germanys allies. After a successful operation, in which South Africas forces also participated, the island was fortified against a potential Japanese invasion.

As a result, South Africa made a significant contribution to the Allied war effort. Number-wise its contribution and losses in terms of pure manpower was relatively low in comparison with major nations, which suffered the most devastating blow during the war. Nevertheless, in full-scale military conflicts, numbers alone do not resolve the fate of the army. The most essential component of a successful military initiative is the ability to procure supplies. This is where the real and the most important contribution of South Africa was made. Its success in restructuring economy to suit the Allied war effort has ensured the stable supply of material, armaments, and even personnel that was trained in South Africas training site.

Significant Outcomes/Conclusions

As with all other countries, the World War II had an enormous impact on South Africa. First, the economy that received a large boost during the war remained and allowed the Union to experience further economic growth. Most importantly, the government saw the value of women and African workers, who became indispensable at the time of war. At the same time, labor conditions were not adequate, with few benefits and disgracefully inadequate wages. Production became more efficient, yet the segregation also increased, as African workers and women did not achieve the rights as white men.

The World War II accentuated the problem of racial segregation in the Union. As soldiers returned home, many expected changes that would put an end to racism, even though the government made no such promises. At the same time, not all whites were content to surrender their eight to make Africans equal to them. As the number of black migrants attracted by new job opportunities grew, many white people feared the rise of the influence of black people. The National Party capitalized on such fears and won 1948 elections. This marked the beginning of the Apartheid era in South Africa.

As such, the World War II did not bring the end to discrimination in South Africa. If anything, Apartheid further exacerbated the conditions of black people. Whereas the Allies victory in the World War II is frequently praised as saving the world from slavery, South Africa continued to be a state with systemic segregation, which would be institutionalized three years after the war. It is surprising that the United Party managed to prevent an internal outbreak and propel economic growth during the war considering the amount of controversies and social unrest. Yet, the lesson that nationalists learned from the World War II was that white supremacy should persevere.

This outcome is all the more striking, when considering the changes in the rest of Africa. Clark notes that unlike other nations, which experienced transformations following the World War II, South Africa became more repressive in the postwar period than any of the colonial territories. It is no surprise that younger generations of Afrikaners have bitter feelings towards white people. Combined with the general ignorance of South Africas role in the World War II, the long years of segregation provide Afrikaners with a reason to call for historic justice.

Bibliography

Clark, Nancy L. Gendering production in wartime South Africa. The American Historical Review 106, no. 4 (2001): 1181-1213.

Dear, Ian, and Foot, Michael. South Africa, Union of. In Oxford Companion to World War II, edited by Ian Dear, and Michael Foot, 662-798. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Grundlingh, Albert. The Kings Afrikaners? Enlistment and ethnic identity in the Union of South Africas Defence Force during the Second World War, 193945. The Journal of African History 40, no. 3 (1999): 351-365.

Grundlingh, Louis. Aspects of the impact of the Second World War on the lives of black South African and British colonial soldiers. Transafrican Journal of History (1992): 19-35.

Mwanikii. The Unspoken Contributions of South Africa in WWII, Medium, Web.

Smith, Jean P. Race and hospitality: Allied troops of colour on the South African home front during the Second World War. War & Society 39, no. 3 (2020): 155-170.

Teer-Tomaselli, Ruth. In service of empire: The South African broadcasting corporation during World War II. Critical Arts 28, no. 6 (2014): 879-904.

The Impact of World War II, Country Studies. Web.