Category: World War 2

Introduction

The objective of this review is to provide a synopsis of the events surrounding the Second World War as presented in the book by Robert Alexander Clarke Parker The Second World War: A short history (1997-2001). This review seeks to establish whether the content of the book reflects the actual happenings that took place during the Second World War.

The review is further meant to analyze the author’s motives and attitudes when compiling the writing and establish whether he is prejudicial or not. The review will explore the author’s feelings, reasons that prompted him to write on the issue, and the sources he used in the work in a bid to determine its credibility. Finally, this review will explore the strongest as well as the weakest issues depicted in this piece of work.

Summary of the book

This book offers a sweeping survey of all the events that took place during the Second World War in a simple and clear manner, all wrapped up in a single volume. It seeks to explore the causes of the war, how long it lasted, and its short-term and long-term effects on humanity.

It also gives a clear picture of the severity of the war as well as its participants and perpetuators. The book takes the reader through the war and comprehensively describes the events as they unfolded in the period between 1939 and 1945. In addition, it gives a brief summary of the historical crisis that characterized the period in question. It places Britain and Europe at the centre of the war and analyzes deeply the role of the two in the war.

According to the book, the war started as a geographical war at first with Germany fighting Poland in order to control it (Parker 2001, 9). The war later turned continental, when Britain and France intervened to oppose the move by Germany and declared war against the latter. This move prompted Russia to join the war by attacking Poland from the south and controlling a great section of the country.

The author traces the cause of the war from the Europeans and the Germans who were the key participants in the crisis. He assesses the strengths and weaknesses of each participant and strategies that each used in the fight. The author conveys a clear picture of the events that made this war different from any other that came before this historical one. Packer is unbiased when writing this piece of work and he narrates the entire story without taking sides.

Critical analysis

Robert Alexander Clarke Parker wrote this chef-d’oeuvre book with the assistance of a team of historians. The author is a European historian with great experience in the field. He worked as a history lecturer at the University of Manchester (Williams 2001, 48). His experience and expertise in the field of history is demonstrated by the simplicity and clarity of writing.

As mentioned before, the book describes the events, that characterized the Second World War, in about 300 pages. In particular, it describes the cause of the war in the European countries and points out that the European and the Far East wars were the two main battles that heralded the Second World War, which was perpetuated by differences in leaders of the affected countries (Parker 2001, 1).

Leaders from the United States, Britain, and France were against actions taken by Germany and Japan, and they argued that Hitler, the then leader of Germany, was a dictator and his government was non-representative. In addition, the attempt by Germany to take over Poland also contributed to the uprising as Britain and France merged against the move.

The war was sparked by the aforementioned countries. After 1939, other European countries joined the war and turned against Germany (Parker 2001, 10). The book attributes Germany to the overall cause of the war through its governance under the leadership of Hitler. It explains the rise of Hitler into power coupled with description of how he succeeded to disband all other political parties in Germany.

Main argument

Parker attributes the cause the war to Germany, Britain, and France. The author claims that if Britain and France did not intervene in the Germany-Poland standoff, the war crisis would not have spiraled to a full-blown war. He explains that the war would have remained geographical (between Germany and Poland), and thus lasted for a short period.

According to Parker (2001, 10-11), the war turned continental when Britain and France turned against Germany in the name of safeguarding the independence of Poland. They declared war against Germany and, even before they could go ahead and execute their plans, Russia joined the war by attacking Poland, which the two countries were defending. From this confrontation, the Second World War was born.

Readability

The book summarizes events of about five and a half year period in only 300 pages. It is the most compact yet complete work amongst the existing ones on the subject. It is designed in a manner that attracts the reader’s attention and the flow is appealing. The masterpiece underscores one of the writings that any reader would love to read from start to the end. It is based on facts and the author is not prejudicial.

The book is written by a historian with unparalleled experience in writing history works, thus he not only makes history look attractive, but also interesting by the use of humorous language that breaks the boredom that often overwhelms a reader when reading historical writings. Parker (2001) narrates the story based on his own point of view by supporting his arguments in an expert way, hence making the entire work naturalistic and enlivening.

Writing motives/ professionalism

Robert Alexander Clarke Parker compiled this book with the help of professional assistants. The long service as a historian and subsequent career as a lecturer in the University of Manchester, probably, is a good indicator of the professionalism in his writing (Williams 2001, 48).

He is a well-known historian with great experience in history writing, which makes his book appealing. His opinions in the book are moderated, though it is evident that he wrote the book from his personal point of view.

However, he acquired information from over 82 sources, including writings from Winston Churchill, who was a Prime Minister of the United Kingdom during the Second World War, and thus Parker had the privilege to access crucial government records Nevertheless, the facts in this book are not complete, since the author could not access some information such as Ultra electronic intelligence and some diplomatic records, that cannot be accessed by a person outside the government. Therefore, this means that the book misses some bits of information from a historical point of view (Williams 2001, 48).

Parker’s narrative is based on his incomparable comprehension of facts and the ability to analyze various historical documents as well as official records. The book is based on his strong feelings and knowledge on how various conflicting aspects can integrate to cause an ever-unending crisis.

He sheds light on the way in which diplomatic and military factors were integrated to cause the Second World War, which lasted for about 6 years. In connection to this aspect, it is sufficient to say that the author employed muscularity and perceived historical background in putting together this work.

Strongest issues

The strongest issue emerging from this book is how the author tackles the use of the military to cause violence. Britain and Europe at large are portrayed as the firsthand perpetrators of the war (Parker 2001, 11).

The reason behind this observation was two-fold. The immediate reason was to safeguard the independence of Poland, whilst the other one was to secure their borders. The British felt that unless Germany was defeated, there would be no peace in the country. However, critics fault this version of events, as at the end of it all they achieved none of the said objectives (Hillenbrand 2010, 91).

According to this book, Britain and France were thus not justified to declare war against Germany and the move was politically instigated. This assertion is further amplified by the view that the two countries failed to attack Russia, which invaded Poland immediately after they had declared war against Germany. If the move to declare war against Germany was justified, then Russia deserved the same treatment.

However, Russia was allowed to continue controlling Poland even after the end of the war. This aspect portrays that the declaration of war by Britain and France was ill-informed and unjustified, something that many historians shy from. Hence, this is one of the book’s strong points. This realization perhaps explains why Russia had to intervene in a bid to counter what appeared as an indefensible war on Germany.

Parker’s stand to question conventional wisdom surrounding the war is another strong point for the book. The book also has an elaborate index, which allows the reader to follow through its contents. In addition, the author draws information from a wide array of sources.

The resources used include works on Germany, Britain, France, Poland, Italy, the USA, the USSR, and Japan. Other sources cover battles, campaigns, and socioeconomic issues surrounding the war. This aspect shows that the author carried out extensive research and had an in depth understanding of the events that surrounded the war.

Weakest issues

The use of propaganda is believed to have influenced and shaped the events of the war. Goebbels, a former communist, is said to have used the media to turn people against Hitler in early 1930s (Dobb 1950, 430). The leader is believed to have used television, radio, and even writings to show the inferiority of the Jews.

This continued until 1939 when the Second World War commenced. During the war, the media was again used considerably by the Axis power to create a propaganda war of its own kind. Propaganda, as one of the numerous causes of conflicts in the history, cannot be ignored.

However, in this book, the contribution made by the media is not adequately covered; hence, it emerges as a shortfall to the credibility of the material. In addition, the number of deaths reported is not certain as it is only given as an estimate probably due to the reluctance by the government to produce some important documents that could be useful in determining the actual numbers.

Conclusion/ Own opinion

In my opinion, the book was written in good faith and without prejudice. It analyzes all the events without favoring any side. The work is compact, but it explores almost all aspects of the history surrounding the Second World War. The Second World War was characterized with distinct features that made it very different from all other wars that preceded it, ranging from the use of nuclear weapons and mass displacement of people to massive destruction of properties.

The book details the actual cause of the confrontation, how the war was won or lost together with its general outcomes for humanity. In his writing, Parker discusses individual aspects in a simple yet convincing manner, thus making it easy for a reader to understand the contents of the book.

He describes the events in a more detailed and professional way as compared to other authors in the same field. The author evaluates each cause of action taken by the participant and then analyzes the effects it had on the progress of the war. Therefore, this chef-d’oeuvre is one of the books that anyone would recommend to a reader wishing to gain maximum knowledge on the issues surrounding the Second World War.

Reference List

Dobb, Leonard. 1950. “Goebbels’ Principles of Propaganda.” The Public Opinion Quarterly 14, no. 3 (June): 419-442.

Hillenbrand, Laura. 2010. Unbroken: A World War II Story of Survival, Resilience, and Redemption. New York, Random House.

Parker, Robert. 2001. The Second World War: A short history (Struggle for survival). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Williams, Perry. 2001. “Obituary: R. A. C. Parker.” The Independent, May 8.

The book by Omer Bartov gives a detailed encounter of an army in Germany called Wehrmacht during the reign of Hitler. It depicts aspects some of the reasons why the army engaged in the war between Germany and Russia. The prevailing politics may have motivated the army. It is also believed that professional skills and competences that guided their operations was a major source of motivation.

Besides, the following review explores whether the army was a threat to Hitler’s regime or not. It may also be possible that the top officials were merely executing the national socialist ideologies in order to enhance the unity and structure of the army. Some of the aspects of a country’s strategic culture that can be highlighted from this book have been discussed below.

War experience

During the Second World War, the Wehrmacht’s success was largely based on the ideologies dictated by the Nazi regime despite of advanced technology that was used to fight the experienced Russian army. The German army was extremely inferior in terms of experience and use of technology compared to its opponents. However, through their organization, they were able to counter the attacks made by their mighty opponents.

Lack of technologically advanced war mechanisms on the side of German troops led to the acceptance of Hitler’s views. According to Hitler’s views, the battle was a struggle for survival.

This ideology demanded total spiritual commitment which was largely a pseudo- religious and mythical ideology that greatly influenced the army against the military, political and traditional values. Bertov (1999) indicates that the commitment by the Wehrmacht army was largely dependent on ideologies, mythology and fanaticism.

Social organization

After the massive defeat and deaths of the German army in the war that took place in the eastern side, it was evident that the traditional groups (primary groups) of the army were no longer working as a unit to in the army. Therefore, it was necessary to reorganize the social groupings in the army.

The Nazi regime had to integrate a new perspective of imaginary groupings so that the troops could look at the war as their duty. Therefore, they could do anything to destroy any real or imaginary enemies (Bartov, 1999).

Perversion of discipline

Bartov (1999) believed that one of the motivations that made the groups stick together was the harsh discipline which the troops exercised. Unity of the groups depended on the military rule and largely relied on how the army perceived its moral and legal basis. Even when the enemies seemed to be more superior than the German army, the groups never disintegrated completely.

This aspect seemed to have been contributed by discipline and the common view which soldiers had about the war. Other than the required discipline as outlined in the martial law, Bartov indicates that much of the discipline and obedience in the army command was not merely due to an ideologically motivated unity. It was also due to fear of brutal punishment.

Any force of opposition from the opponent’s army and civilians was met with maximum brutality. Discipline was in line with changes in the martial law. This was considered as the extension of the ideologies of the Nazi regime.

Distortion of reality

The aspect of distortion of the reality resulted from the ideological perceptions of the regime that were instilled in the minds of the soldiers during both training and at while at war. One of the Nazi ideologies was the use of propaganda in order to make the soldiers believe that the war was meant to protect humanity from demonic attacks.

Finally, the Nazi regime and its ideologies changed how the German army operated especially during World War II. These ideologies were instrumental in maintaining the military forces together that were needed to fight their enemies despite immense challenges (Bartov, 1999)

Reference

Bartov, O. (1999). Hitler’s Army: Soldiers, Nazi and War in the Third Reich. New York: Oxford University Press.

Any information about Hitler generates a lot of interest. Money is also made in keeping afloat conspiracy theories related to him. An especially common discussion is that Hitler did not kill himself during Soviet’s final offensive on Berlin. According to an article by Justice for Germans (2013), pessimists believe that he escaped either to Argentina or a safer hideout in the South Pole.

Nonetheless, many people see this propaganda as a plot to depict Hitler as a coward and a traitor. From the onset of the war, Hitler proved to be a trustworthy leader. Consequently, he was loved, respected and obeyed by the people he led. His charisma and ability to lead from the front were some of the factors that sustained the Second World War.

Therefore, the outcome of this war was expected to determine Hitler’s fate. Those who believe that Hitler outsmarted the allies are set to be disappointed. There is compelling evidence that he died in 1945. This essay uses evidence from forensic anthropology to describe Hitler’s death.

Hitler chose to kill himself rather than fall from an enemy’s bullet. This happened when it dawned on him that he had lost the war to the Allies. In fact, it is believed that the Soviet army was just five hundred meters from his hideout when he committed suicide (Justice for Germans, 2013). Sadly, his wife, Eva Braun, died in the same incident. Their remains we later found on ruins in Berlin by the Soviet troops (Jamieson, 2009).

Debate on Hitler’s death was stirred by contradicting information given by the Soviet leadership. In some instances, Soviet leaders seemed to indicate that Hitler did not survive their raid. However, later utterance would prove otherwise. For instance, an announcement made by the Soviet army’s spokesman in June 1945 confirmed that Hitler had killed himself. Later pronouncements, nonetheless, contradicted this announcement.

Stalin’s statement at the Potsdam conference was a typical example of these inconsistent statements. In this conference, he told the Western leaders that Hitler had fled to South America or Spain (Justice for Germans, 2013). Other interesting stories about the Nazi leader’s death have emerged after this utterance.

There is a common agreement among historians that Hitler died. Ample forensic evidence and anthropology analysis support this claim. For instance, experts used dental evidence to identify Hitler after a postmortem was conducted on his body. In this postmortem, his dentist identified positively a cut on the bridge that separated two of his teeth (Jamieson, 2009). Due to his earlier dental problems, his teeth and the jaw bones were familiar with his dentist.

In 2000, Hitler’s skull was displayed in an archive in Moscow (Mail Foreign Service, 2009). This gave people a chance to observe and analyze the bullet hole in it. Majority of scientists and historians have agreed that this is indeed Hitler’s skull. Testimonies from people who witnessed his death also add weight to the overwhelming forensic evidence (Mail Foreign Service, 2009). These discoveries put to rest all doubts that Hitler did not die in 1945.

Figure 1. An X-ray of Hitler’s skull. Part of the bridge between his 5^th and 6^th tooth on the upper jaw that was cut in an earlier operation is clearly visible.

According to Mail Foreign Service (2009), Hitler may not have committed suicide. Results from DNA analysis done on a piece of the skull thought to belong to Hitler disclosed that it matched a woman (Mail Foreign Service, 2009). This analysis was done in the US. The bones also seemed to be weaker than men’s bones.

Citing Nick Bellantoni, an archeologist from the University of Connecticut, Mail Foreign Service (2009) reiterates that the skull plates, when brought together, appeared to correspond to a person below the age of 40. In April 1945, the Nazi leader was 56. This is an indication that the preserved skull may not have belonged to him. Since Eva Braun died at the age of thirty three years, the skull could have been hers.

Marcheti, Boschi, Polacco and Rainio (2005) add that Hitler’s death remains a mystery. Evidence supporting his death is inconclusive since the skull with the bullet hole has never been properly examined (Marcheti et al., 2005). If these analyses are true, claims that Hitler survived the Soviet onslaught on Berlin should be taken seriously.

Fig 2. Hitler’s skull at a Russian archive. The bullet hole is undoubtedly noticeable from this angle.

Theories denying that Hitler was killed in Second World War are popular and extensive. To some historians, claims that Hitler committed suicide were a scheme by the Nazi to portray him as hero. In the US, tests done on a part of the skull purported to be Hitler’s have given unconvincing results.

Nonetheless, there is overwhelming proof that all rumors surrounding Hitler’s death are hoaxes. Dental and other forensic evidences show that the body found by the Soviet army was actually Hitler’s. This was after observing the teeth, jaw bone and the work done on a bridge separating two of his teeth.

References

An X-ray of Hitler’s skull [Photograph]. (1945). Web.

Hitler’s skull at a Russian archive [Photograph]. (n.d.). Web.

Jamieson, A. (2009). Adolf Hitler skull fragment is genuine evidence of suicide, insists Russia. The Telegraph. Web.

Justice for Germans. (2013). Debunking the “Hitler escaped” myths – Forensic evidence trumps rumours, theories and romantic tales.Web.

Mail Foreign Service. (2009). Fresh doubts over Hitler’s death after tests on bullet hole skull reveal it belonged to a woman. Mail Online.Web.

Marchetti, D., Boschi, I, Polacco, M., & Rainio, J. (2005).The death of Adolf Hitler–forensic aspects. Journal of Forensic Sciences, (50(5), 1147-53. Web.

World War II is one of the most tragic events in the history of the 20^th century. That is why historians and the public pay much attention to the discussion of the role in this war of those personalities who persistently led the Western anti-Hitler coalition to the victory over Nazi Germany and its allies.

The figure of Dwight D. Eisenhower is one of the most significant among the commanders of the Western allies because General Eisenhower is famous for his decisive actions in controlling all the land operations at the Western front since 1943. During the whole war, Eisenhower developed his great leader and tactician’s skills to make the future victory possible.

Dwight D. Eisenhower was always interested in military history and hoped to become a soldier. He entered the Military Academy at West Point in 1911. When World War I began a young man started training tank crews and was considered as a good specialist.

However, when the war ended, Eisenhower’s military career was not very active, and the most significant achievement was the service at the Panama Canal Zone (Wicker). Thus, the peacetime required a new approach to life, and Eisenhower concentrated on administrative activity. Nevertheless, 1939-1941 years can be discussed as turning points in his military career (Smith).

After Eisenhower’s serving as Chief of Staff of the Blue Army in 1941, he was appointed to be responsible for developing the war plans to defeat Germany and its allies. Taking an active part in the development of strategic operations for the American army, Eisenhower attracted the senior military leaders’ attention, and in 1942 he was appointed Supreme Commander Allied Force of the North African Theater of Operations (Smith). His important task was also to strengthen the unity between the Americans and the British to avoid a surge of any nationalistic visions which could prevent the allies from effective military actions (Wicker).

Having analyzed the possibilities of the Western forces, Eisenhower consistently insisted on the soonest landing in France to attack Nazi Germany directly. However, the openness of the second front was preceded by the development of such successful operations as the Torch in Morocco and operations at Sicily headed by General Eisenhower (Smith).

It is impossible to overestimate the role of General Eisenhower in providing the operations at the Western front because, in 1943, Eisenhower became the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. He planned and organized the largest operation of that period known as Overlord when the allied troops landed at the Norman coast (Wicker).

The effect of suddenness for Germany was fully achieved. This fact helped to develop an effective operation. However, when the allied forces came closer and closer to Germany’s borders, the army experienced the challenges of the panic fear of sabotage, and Eisenhower’s task was to inspire soldiers for overcoming all the difficulties to become closer to the victory (Wicker).

The next achievement of Eisenhower was the largest Rhine-Ruhr offensive operation of 1945, which success proved the power of the allied forces and their further victory. Nevertheless, many historians argue the effectiveness of Eisenhower’s strategic operations and further actions by focusing on his lack of previous war experience (Smith).

However, the successes of those operations planned and provided by Dwight D. Eisenhower emphasize the General’s leader and tactician’s talents and make people think of the great role of this person in leading the allied forces to the victory over Nazi Germany.

Works Cited

Smith, Jean Edward. Eisenhower in War and Peace. USA: Random House, 2012. Print.

Wicker, Tom. Dwight D. Eisenhower. USA: Times Books, 2002. Print.

The Second World War was the most devastating conflict in the history of humanity. It is estimated that 50 million people perished during the war, approximately 20 million of whom were civilians (Foner 888). The conflict started in Europe, initiated by the German Nazis led by Hitler, who was helped by other far-right forces. The U.S., despite initially trying to be neutral, was also dragged into the conflict. The war ended with the defeat of the far rights; however, conflicts of interests of the winners led to the tension that persisted for long years after the war.

In Eurasia, a number of events occurred in the 1930s that led to the war. In 1931, Japan invaded Manchuria (a Chinese province); later, they moved farther to China, slaughtering people. In Europe, Hitler came to power in Germany; he started rearming the country (violating the Versailles Treaty) and occupied Rheinland in 1936.

Italian fascist Benito Mussolini invaded Ethiopia. A far-right General Francisco Franco led a coup d’état in Spain (for which aim he received support from Hitler), and achieved victory in the civil war in 1939. In 1938, Hitler annexed Austria and a part of Czechoslovakia in his pursuit to “unite the Aryan race.” Hitler also launched mass persecutions of Jews, deporting them to concentration camps. At first, Britain and France kept to the policy of “appeasement,” trying to talk Hitler into promising peace.

In 1939, Stalin offered to oppose any further German claims on territory, but Britain and France refused. Then the Soviet Union signed the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, a treaty of non-aggression between the USSR and Germany, and Germany invaded Poland in 1939. Germany followed the method of Blitzkrieg, “a lightning war,” which involved fast and unanticipated attacks in order to defeat an enemy who was not ready to defend oneself quickly.

Hitler planned to capture all the Europe fast and spread his Nazi policy further. Within a single year, the Nazis seized Scandinavia, Belgium, the Netherlands, and France. In 1940, the Axis, a military alliance between Germany, Italy, and Japan, was forged (Foner 853-856).

The U.S. initially attempted to remain neutral. In addition, in America, there also were followers of Hitler. Many others strongly wished not to participate in the conflict. The country adopted the policy of “appeasement” and isolationism. However, Roosevelt showed support to Britain and China, who were fighting Germany, by selling them weapons. The U.S. gradually found itself in closer and closer relationships with the countries fighting the Nazis.

However, these countries run out of finances to buy American supplies at some point. In March 1941, the Lend-Lease Act was passed by the Congress; it permitted the USA to provide military supplies for the enemies of the Nazis (in particular, Britain, China, and later the USSR when it joined the war), as long as the recipients promised to pay back after the war. America also froze all the Japanese assets in the U.S., which stopped the trade between the two countries (Foner 855-857).

An aggressive reaction followed in December 1941 when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, an American naval base in Hawaii, killing over 2000 people and destroying a number of ships and aircraft. Soon, Congress voted for the U.S. to join the war. Germany declared war on the USA the next day after the vote. From this point, the U.S. joined the worldwide war (Foner 857-858).

In 1943, during the Casablanca Conference, Roosevelt offered the Allies (the coalition of countries opposing the Axis) to accept no less than unconditional surrender from the enemy. It meant that the Allies would offer no guarantees to the leaders of the countries surrendering to them in the war.

With time, the Allies started to achieve progress in battling the enemy. In particular, there were a number of important victories against Japan. In response, Japan started using Kamikaze aircraft, suicide bombers that crashed into enemy ships. Such assaults were more precise and effective than regular attacks.

In 1945, the forces of the Allies were winning. However, before that time, a secret project had been launched in the U.S. to develop a nuclear bomb before that could have been accomplished by Germany. The bomb was created, and Truman dropped two bombs on Japan in August 1945. The decision is hard to estimate; on the one hand, an invasion into Japan would have cost the estimated 250,000 American lives, as well as more lives of Japanese people.

On the other hand, the bombs killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians, when Japan had already been going to surrender. It is stated that the profound dehumanization of Japanese, which took place in the U.S., also played its role. The decision to drop the nuclear bombs remains controversial until these days (Foner 886-888).

In 1945, the Yalta Conference took place. During it, the USA and Britain did not object much to the USSR reclaiming the Baltic states and a part of Poland. Stalin, however, agreed to allow “free and unfettered elections” in Poland. Also, Britain did not agree to help India and other British colonies to become independent. Still, the participants of the conference had conflicting views about the future of the post-war world. It is stated that the conference planted the seeds of the future conflict between the U.S. and the Soviet Union (Foner 889-890).

To sum up, it should be noted that German and other far rights initiated a large-scale conflict in Europe, and many countries, including the U.S., were dragged into the most devastating war in history. After six bloody years, the Axis failed to achieve victory, but different members of the Allies had conflicting interests, which led to long-term tension in the post-war world.

Works Cited

Foner, Eric. Give Me Liberty!: An American History. Vol. 2. 4th ed. 2013. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company. Print.

Introduction

The Second World War is an historical event that occurred from 1939 to 1945, but the events that led to its occurrence began much earlier. The major players in the war were world powers that aimed at outperforming each other via the use of two opposing military alliances. It is documented that the 6-year event about one million people who were drawn from thirty countries. It is apparent that women played important roles during the war period. In fact, the participation of women in the event was prepared during the First World War. Previously, women mainly focused on performing domestic duties, which involved being housewives and servants.

The roles that were played by women during the WWII differed from one nation to another. This paper considers the roles that the US women performed during the WWII. It uses an oral interview to gain the views of those who took part in the event. It is important to note that other researchers have utilized oral interviews to gain important information about the topic (Kuh, Hardy, Langenberg, Richards, and Wadsworth 1077; Pesonen, Räikkönen, Heinonen, Kajantie, Forsén and Eriksson 1127). The contribution of the study findings will be essential to both scholars and non-scholars across the world.

Methods

The choice of the best methods is important in any scientific study (Neuman 24). The oral interview concentrated on gaining information from two female respondents who took part in the Second World War. The first interviewee was a 90-year old American who was recruited into the historical event at the age of 23. She spoke with a lot of nostalgia, but she could break down into tears occasionally when she recalled some occurrences of the war.

The second respondent was a 92-year old American woman who was introduced into the world event when she was 20. Unlike the first interviewee, she was more composed and she did not sob at all. The methodological problem faced in the study was that it was difficult to choose the best method to collect data (Neuman 76). In addition, from an interpersonal standpoint, there was a problem of establishing relationships with the interviewees. Finally, situational issues were encountered when the women expressed fears of availing themselves for the interview at some time points of the day.

Interview data

When the interview was being conducted, the interviewer was recording the conversations, which could be analyzed later to learn about important aspects of the topic. Below are the extracts of the main sections of the interview that represent the actual words from the respondents.

Excerpts of the interview with interviewee 1 (90-year old American woman)

Interviewer: Good afternoon madam.

Interviewee: Good afternoon. How may I help you?

Interviewer: I am interested in interviewing you with regard to women’s participation in the Second World War.

Interviewee: Yes, I will give you any information that you may want because I was part of the historical event.

Interviewer: At what age were you recruited?

Interviewee: At 23.

Interviewer: Can you describe your first experience when you joined the military forces?

Interviewee: The first experience was horrible because I was on the battlefront while offering nursing care to injured soldiers. My role was to ensure that military personnel were in good health. I worked in a team that was composed of many healthcare professionals. At first, I could not believe that I was seeing hundreds of soldiers bleeding.

Interviewer: Were there cases of female harassment in the war?

Interviewee: Yes. In fact, many chauvinists could not subscribe to the idea of women taking part in a war to play any role. Such persons could view females as sex objects. It is worth noting that some soldiers raped some of my colleagues.

Interviewer: Finally, what can you describe the participation of women in the war?

Interviewee: First, it was a great improvement and empowerment of women with regard to taking part in events that were previously preserved for men. Secondly, the experiences made women to encourage others and let them know that they had a huge potential to protect their nations.

Interviewer: Thank you so much for the interview.

Interviewee: You are welcome.

Excerpts of the interview with interviewee 2 (92-year old American woman)

Interviewer: Good morning.

Interviewee: Good morning. How may I help you?

Interviewer: I am interested in interviewing you with regard to women’s participation in the Second World War.

Interviewee: I would be more than willing to offer you any information, having participated in the event as a woman.

Interviewer: At what age were you recruited?

Interviewee: At 20.

Interviewer: How can you describe your first experience when you joined the military forces?

Interviewee: It was very shocking to see injured human beings who were in dire need of medical care. I had just graduated from college, but working in the war was the last thing that I had anticipated. I was involved in military logistical support.

Interviewer: Were there cases of female harassment in the war?

Interviewee: Personally, I was not harassed, but my female colleagues could confide in me that some soldiers had harassed them sexually.

Interviewer: Finally, what can you describe the participation of women in the war?

Interviewee: I believe that the historical event prepared women across the world to take part in more activities, most of which were a preserve of men.

Interviewer: Thank you so much for the interview.

Interviewee: You are welcome.

Significance of the findings

The findings are important because they provide essential information with regard to the roles of women in WWII. In addition to providing personal experiences of the two women respondents, the findings give an overview of the situation in the war. Such an overview could be utilized to make important conclusions about several aspects of the historical event (Braybon and Summerfield 65). For example, it can be asserted that women a significant number of women provided medical and logistical support rather than being involved in actual fighting (Kuh et al 1078; Pesonen et al 1128).

Conclusion

Interpretation of the contents of the interview can be done on the platforms of theory and history. Several theoretical approaches have been made with regard to the roles of women in the WWII. It is worth understanding that a war can be likened to an organism, which is composed of different systems. This view is proposed by the systems theory.

Thus, it can be interpreted that women took part in the event to make military forces of various countries achieve their goals. In other words, their services were aimed at supplementing those of men. From an historical standpoint, it can be concluded that women have been taking part in important events that could protect their nations. Historically, the Second World War was critical in preparing women to take up positions that were previously held by men. Thus, the findings of the oral interview are in agreement with previous studies that have been conducted with regard to the topic.

Works Cited

Braybon, Gail, and Penny Summerfield. Out of the cage: Women’s experiences in two world wars. Vol. 5. London, United Kingdom: Routledge, 2012. Print.

Kuh, Diana, Rebecca Hardy, Claudia Langenberg, Marcus Richards, and Michael Wadsworth. “Mortality in adults aged 26-54 years related to socioeconomic conditions in childhood and adulthood: post war birth cohort study.” Bmj 325.7372 (2002): 1076-1080. Print.

Neuman, William. Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2010. Print.

Pesonen, Anu-Katriina, Katri Räikkönen, Kati Heinonen, Eero Kajantie, Tom Forsén, and Johan Eriksson. “Depressive symptoms in adults separated from their parents as children: a natural experiment during World War II.” American journal of epidemiology 166.10 (2007): 1126-1133. Print.

The events of the Second World War have always been of high interest for the people all around the world. Massive ruinations, enormous attacks, never ending sufferings and a large number of victims go alongside brilliant plans, excellently projected strategies and flawlessly employed operations. One of such legendary operations is the one that happened on D-Day, the day that shifted the balance of powers of the whole war, the put the beginning to the victorious march of the armies of Allies and became one of the first signals of German defeat. The events that happened on the day the operation was launched led to the creation of second front and a major loss for the Nazi troops. The day is still remembered as D-day for a reason.

The operation genially designed and planned began on the sixth of June in 1944. According to the plan, the troops of Allied armies on Great Britain, the United States and Canada were directed to Normandy coast that faces the English Channel. This operation had a code name “Overlord” and was intended to remove some of the pressure put in the Soviet Army confronting the German invaders. This operation created a second front, because of that the forces of aggressors had to split and spend much more effort in order to carry on their plan to occupy all of Europe. In fact, for the first time Joseph Stalin, the leader of the USSR, made a request for the Great Britain to start creating the second front at the very beginning of the war in 1941, but back then it was impossible for the British to organize such great change without help, so they did all they could to help the Soviets to hold on by throwing help and providing supplies for the Soviet Army.¹ The United States joined the war in the end of 1941. Franklin Roosevelt supported the idea of opening the Second front with the purpose of withdrawal of German troops from the Eastern front, Stalin continued to insist that the allies organize some help, but Winston Churchill was still convinced that Britain is not ready for such action.

The actual preparation for the D-Day started in 1943, and it was initiated by Winston Churchill, who also pushed many other collaborative operations of Anglo-American Allies.² It is interesting to notice that the written version of the plan for the operation consisted of one hundred and three pages in total. It included complicated maneuvers, geographical schemes, combat engineering and mathematical calculations. The overall number of people involved into the operation counted one hundred and seventy-five thousand soldiers. The plan consisted of airborne and amphibious attacks with the use of thousands of planes and vessels; there also were infantry and artillery units. The whole plan was a big risk. Practically, bringing an enormous number of troops from across the ocean and landing them in the South of France that was occupied by Germans was highly dangerous. If the operation went wrong it could have led to serious problems and weakened the armies of Allies.

After a year of preparation and planning the operation finally faced its D-day. The Allies relied majorly on tactical surprise for the German leaders. The planners of the operation “Overlord” organized a massive and complex military deception, which was distinguished and employed as a separate operation called “Bodyguard”. With the help of new engineering technologies developed specially for the D-day the Allied armies managed to cause confusion in the time and pace of the main attack so that the Germen troops ended up unprepared for the infiltration of Americans, British and Canadians. In order to put operation “Bodyguard” in practice, two more deception plans were launched. They were called “Taxable” and “Glimmer”, their purpose was to disable the German radar system and stimulate the invasion spoof convoys directed to other regions of France.³ In order to confuse the German troops and make them believe that the traffic was actually moving towards the coast of France the Allied armies launched a group of dummy vessels, which were equipped with radio technologies animating the spoof convoy and making the fake attack more believable. A complex system of tactical, engineering, technological and diplomatic deceptions preparing the ground for the D-day and “Overlord” was held on multiple layers and consisted of around twenty other plans with various code names. A deception of such complexity is unique for the whole history of wars.

The actual landings happened on five different parts of the coast of Normandy. American troops arrived to the beaches called Omaha and Utah, the British landed on Gold and Sword beaches, the Canadians occupied Juno beach. The American mission was to take over Cherbourg and cut the connection with Cotentin Peninsula. The Canadians together with the British were to occupy Caen, which was decided to be a staging territory for the preparation for further and deeper invasions. The first troops that reached the shore suffered major losses because they had to run through over two hundred yards of bald beach without any rocks or trees, and they were under constant armed attacks, besides they had to carry pounds of equipment.⁴ Over four thousand of infantry soldiers died during the operation. Previously to the beginning of the operation, the German military leaders never managed to agree about the potential area of landing of the Allies. Even though they were aware of the possibility of the invasion, they could not identify which part of the British Channel would be invaded⁵.

By the end of the day on the sixth of June the invasion of the Allies managed to take over the beach areas several mines inland. The tropes and vessels kept arriving day after day since the beginning of the operation “Overlord”. On the seventh of June ninety-eight new ships came to the coast of Normandy. On the eights the number of new coming vessels reached two hundred and sixteen. This massive operation served as the breaking point of the course of the Second World War. It is a known fact that less that in a year after the launch of the operation “Overlord” the war was over and the aggressor armies were defeated. It is interesting to know that Hitler was asleep through half of the day when the invasion of Normandy began. There are versions that his people were simply afraid to wake him or that they did not do so intentionally because they did not take the invasion seriously thinking that it was only a diversion.⁶

After the success of the operation “Overlord” the Allied forces continued to work together and initiated more collaborative plans and operations in other areas, they helped to free Europe; they conducted military projects in Africa and Mediterranean region. The leaders of the two powerful countries united and became closer, their co-operation was highly fruitful and important for it changed the history and speeded up the end of the Second World War.

Bibliography

Barbier, Mary. D-day Deception: Operation Fortitude and the Normandy Invasion. Santa Barbara: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007

Burns, Russel W. “Deception, Technology and the D-day Invasion”. Engineering Science and Education Journal 2005: 81-88

“D-day Overview.” Dday.org, Web.

Holderfield, Randy and Michael Varhola. D-day: The Invasion of Normandy, June 6, 1944. Cambridge: Da Capo Press, 2009.

Lusted, Marcia Amidon. D-Day: The Normandy Invasion. Edina: ABDO Publishing Company, 2014.

Morison, Samuel Eliot. Invasion of France and Germany. Chicago: University Illinois Press, 2002.

Footnotes

1. Mary Barbier. D-day Deception: Operation Fortitude and the Normandy Invasion. (Santa Barbara: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007), 2.
2. Randy Holderfield, Michael Varhola. D-day: The Invasion of Normandy, June 6, 1944. (Cambridge: Da Capo Press, 2009), 3.
3. Russel W. Burns. “Deception, Technology and the D-day Invasion”. Engineering Science and Education Journal (2005): 81.
4. “D-day Overview.” Dday.org. Web.
5. Samuel Eliot Morison. Invasion of France and Germany. (Chicago: University Illinois Press, 2002), 43.
6. Marcia Amidon Lusted. D-Day: The Normandy Invasion. (Edina: ABDO Publishing Company, 2014), 84.

Introduction

The British policy about Germany before World War II can most accurately be analyzed through the views of Winston Churchill. According to the wartime British Prime Minister, Hitler’s aims were irrational and they threatened to destabilize Europe. Churchill’s assertions were mostly borrowed from Hitler’s Nazi manifesto “Mein Kampf”. The British establishment was convinced that Hitler’s main aim was to revive the German Empire and then use his position to conquer Eastern European countries. Consequently, Britain believed that the only way to stop Hitler was by declaring war on rearmed Germany. Churchill was also convinced that rearmed Germany’s military power was a serious threat to European stability. It is debatable as to whether Britain’s assessment of the Hitler threat was accurate. This essay discusses the most important aspects of British policies to Germany in the run-up to World War II.

Hitler’s ideologies

Most of Hitler’s political aims and goals were informed by his involvement in World War I where he had been a soldier. Germany had surrendered in World War I when it was in the brink of achieving European domination¹. Hitler’s foreign policy was mainly aimed at correcting the tricky position that Germany had found itself in after World War I. Nevertheless, there were other aspects of the Nazi political party as outlined in its 25-point program. Examples of these policies included “the union of all Germans, an end to the Treaty of Versailles, creation of a national army, and the exclusion of the Jews from the German society”².

Misunderstanding of Hitler’s ideologies

Hitler wrote two books that outlined the core of his political aims and ambitions: the “Mein Kempf” and the “Secret Book”³. These books contribute greatly to the misunderstanding of Hitler’s ideological motivations and political goals. Britain was among the countries that did not welcome the idea of another war due to the bloodshed that had ensued in the World War I. Consequently, the British people evaluated Hitler’s ideological motivations hastily, and they might have misunderstood them in this process. For instance, Britain was convinced that Hitler was an aggressor who was mainly concerned with war. On the contrary, history indicates that Hitler’s main ideology was to expand a territory in which a ‘pure race’ would thrive. Britain ignored Hitler’s racial ideology because it appeared trivial when it was compared to the need for European domination⁴.

Appeasement

To avoid another world war, Britain and other European players adopted the policy of appeasement. The policy sought to please the countries that were not favored by the Versailles Treaty peace agreement of 1919, especially Germany. The adoption of the appeasement policy was aimed at easing the rising aggression among the disgruntled countries. The logic behind the appeasement policy was that Italy and Germany would feel that they were in equal terms with other European countries without having to prove their status through military action. There were several opponents to this policy including Winston Churchill⁵.

Overview and conclusion

Eventually, appeasement failed to carry out its intended purpose when Britain declared war against Germany in 1939. Appeasement was likely a ploy by Britain to ready itself for war. The French, on the other hand, were following Britain’s cue because they were not independent military wise. Hitler’s role in starting World War II is possible but it is not obvious. In the future, the debate might be settled whereby blame for this conflict might be redistributed.

Bibliography

Childers, T., The Nazi Voter: The Social foundations of Fascism in Germany, Carolina, University of North Carolina Press, 2010.

Cohrs, P., The Unfinished Peace after World War I: America, Britain and the Stabilisation of Europe, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Hitler, A., Mein Kampf. Berlin, Om Books International, 2000.

Ovendale, R., ” Appeasement” and the English Speaking World: Britain, the United States, the Dominions, and the Policy of” appeasement” 1937-1939, Wales, University of Wales Press, 1975.

Spielvogel, J., Hitler and Nazi Germany: A History, New York, Routledge, 2016.

Footnotes

1 T. Childers, The Nazi Voter: The Social Foundations of Fascism in Germany, Carolina, University of North Carolina Press, 2010, p. 24.

2 J. Spielvogel, Hitler, and Nazi Germany: A History, New York, Routledge, 2016, p. 34.

3 A. Hitler, Mein Kampf, Berlin, Om Books International, 2000, p. 8.

4 P. Cohrs, The Unfinished Peace after World War I: America, Britain and the Stabilisation of Europe, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2006, p. 43.

5 R. Ovendale, “Appeasement” and the English Speaking World: Britain, the United States, the Dominions, and the Policy of “Appeasement” 1937-1939, Wales, University of Wales Press, 1975, p. 12.

History remembers the soldiers and the leaders who lead countries through wars. For example, people remember the soldiers and the leaders who were involved in World War I and II. It is very rare for people to think about the people who were left at the homefront. These are people who remained in their home countries, trying to move on with everyday life despite the wars. This essay looks at how World War II affected the lives of those left at the homefront.

From the provided excerpt, one thing is clear. The people who remained at home also had to change their lives to suit the war. For example, ‘She is a Wow’ and the U.S Employment Service posters show women doing manual labor. They had to start working in order to put food on the table. In addition to this, they also embraced the empowerment that came about from the employment service. The message on the posters is stressed by Lewis, a Negro, who worked as a riveter and a bucker during the war. Before the war, women were either helps or stayed at home to raise a family. The war forced them to get to work, make money, and take charge of their lives.

On the same note, the people left at the homefront had to work together in order to survive. The race was still a major concern for many states. However, because slavery had ended, the darker races were free to look for work. It suffices to mention that the darker races were still segregated. For example, the League of United Latin American Citizens explains that Mexicans were not allowed into America when they came back from the war.

Thus, in every sense, the Mexicans had been used to help America win the war, but they were not welcome into the country. The segregation was very intense and spread through propaganda posters. For example, the ‘Keep this horror from your home’ poster shows a black man attacking a white woman. The poster is meant to make the community buy war bonds. However, using a black man to refer to the ‘horror’ highlights the stereotype that members of the black population are violent and dangerous.

It is true that many people in the homefront, regardless of race, expected the war to change their lives. Lewis explains that she knew her job as a riveter/bucker would come to an end after the war, but she would work hard to make as much money as possible before that happened.

It suffices to mention that without knowing it, the League of United Latin American Citizens was foreshadowing future problems in American society. Even to date, the race is still a big issue in America. Other races have been used to satisfy the needs of the Caucasians. For example, the Mexicans have been invited to America by the job market and are given very little pay for services rendered. Thus, they are helping American society develop its economy when they are not considered citizens and not paid enough.

In conclusion, the excerpts were given indeed show that there were changes experienced in the homefront during the war. For example, women were encouraged to apply for jobs in the industries. Additionally, the issue of segregation became more apparent during the war. They used discrimination and propaganda to attract clients and make a profit, given that business was booming for some industries.

Introduction

It is hard to comprehend how many books were written on such significant topic as the World War II. Every year books that cover the World War II are published by various publishers in different languages. So what is so special about the World War II: A Very Short Introduction?

First, it was written by Gerhard Ludwig Weinberg, a recognized authority on the World War II and the history of the Nazi Germany. Weinberg is the Professor Emeritus of History that has taught at faculties of the Michigan, Kentucky, and Carolina Universities. The questions addressed in the book were not very often discussed previously, as the author states in the introduction (Weinberg, World War II 3); Weinberg examines Germany’s responsibility for World War II, the reasons behind the eventual victory of the Allies, as well as the transformations the war has brought to the countries that took part in the war.

Profile of the Book

To write a short introduction to such a momentous event as World War II, one should have accurate knowledge of historical events that preceded and followed this war. Weinberg demonstrates an excellent understanding of the origins and the course of the war, although he presents them very briefly due to the format of the book. The first chapter is devoted to the post-World War I years and provides a detailed description of the historical processes that later influenced the beginning of the World War II (redrawn national boundaries, arranged plebiscites throughout Europe, mandates and rearranging of the former German colonies). However, some of the raised questions demand a more detailed observation to provide the reader with the information crucial for understanding the origins of World War II (e.g., the role of League of Nations and the American Policy of Isolationism in the war). More precise observation is delivered by the author on the invasion of Poland, as well as Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union. The war between Japan and China is also described by the author. The final chapters of the book cover the inventions and transformations in medical and technical fields and the victory of the Allies in 1945. Although not complete and sometimes missing clarifying notes, overall the order of the chapters, as well as their content, is logically structured and able to provide new pieces of information even to those closely familiar with the topic.

Weinberg’s Interpretation of the War

In his interpretation of the war, Weinberg shows persistent logic and clear view of the connections between the aims and ambitions of every war participant. However, since the book does not use any references to back up the content, the author should have tried to imply, and not state: “it became clear to Hitler that preparations could not be advanced quickly enough…” (Weinberg, World War II 52). Nevertheless, such statements are rare to find in the book, and most of the time Weinberg discusses the events using a formal, objective approach. To support the explanations and reflections, several maps are presented in the book. School students may find them hard to comprehend, but it is perfectly suitable for undergraduate students who need to refresh their knowledge or want to go through the history of World War II without an abundance of details and wide descriptions of every battle. The author focuses on the key events of World War II but does not attempt a deeper analysis of the events. It is not clear, however, if the author was limited by the format of the series or he did not aim to provide deep explanations at all.

The Context of the Events

The context of the events in the book is probably the best part of it. Weinberg religiously inspects the wider context of the World War II, recalling various invasions and military plans, colonies’ role in the war, technical and medical achievements of the belligerents. Germany’s advancement in technologies may be unclear to some of the readers: the author dissects Germany’s research during the Holocaust in labor camps and gives a clear explanation on some medical advances of the Third Reich. The role of Finland, Romania and other countries in Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union is not disregarded, as well as diplomatic relationships between Germany and the Soviets between and during the invasion of Poland. The impact of the war between Japan and China is often briefly explained in other history books, but Weinberg dedicates a separate chapter to this event. The victory of the Allies does not gain that much attention, but considering how many articles and books were written on it, it could also be regarded as an advantage of the book. Weinberg refuses to paraphrase the events described by him in his other books (A World at Arms 102). Instead, he prefers to focus on other matters.

However, the description of the World War II is still quite shallow and facile in some of the chapters. For example, the author states that “the vast majority of Germans supported the regime up until the last weeks of the war” (Weinberg, World War II 99), but does not explain why or how it happened. Nor does he explicitly address the impact of reparations on the economy of Germany, although they were directly linked to Hitler’s rise to power.

Omissions and Style

It should be probably clear to the reader that the author did not try to fit as many details as he could into ‘a short introduction’, but rather present the main events and provide new, curious details about them if possible. Weinberg may have skipped preparation details about the invasion of Poland or the Soviets, and he had certainly omitted the process that preceded the establishment of the League of Nations. Instead, he focused on a precise description of the Treaty of Versailles and its impact on Germany and the outbreak of the war: “enforcement was left to the countries… most weakened by the war” (Weinberg, World War II 9). Therefore, some omissions do not appear to be crucial.

World War II: A Very Short Introduction is written in a formal, academic style. While some readers may criticize the book for being too formal, I believe that it is a good example of how a history book should be written: facts presented without emotional engagement, analyzed as objectively as possible, giving the reader an opportunity to form an independent opinion. Weinberg might have allowed himself to judge some of the events, but this weakness is covered by other advantages of the book mentioned above.

Conclusion

The book World War II: A Very Short Introduction is a good example of how an event as enormous as World War II can be described and discussed on less than 200 pages. While the author omits some details that could be useful to the reader and does not use any references at all, the book fits perfectly to the other historical literature as a brief guide to the premises, key events, and impacts of the war on the belligerents’ soldiers and citizens. It can be helpful both to experienced historians and to college students who have only begun their study.

Works Cited

Weinberg, Gerhard L. A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Print.

—. World War II: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: OUP Oxford, 2014. Print.