The Second World War (WW II) was a worldwide Confrontation that comprised more than 30 countries, including major powers. This war continued from the year 1939 until 1945: major powers had created two divergent armed coalitions, with the first being the Allies and the second being known as the Axis (Boldyrev, 2019). The Allies powers consisted of Britain, the Soviet Union, and France, while the axis powers were Germany, Japan, as well as Italy. As the confrontation, progressed, other countries joined the warfare on either side. A number of factors contributed to the outbreak of this fighting, among them rising tensions in Europe after World War 1 and Germany’s invasion of Poland (Boldyrev, 2019). As the fighting continued, there arose the need to produce equipment to sustain the war: this came to be called wartime production. It involved the manufacture of war equipment needed during this time. Items produced were arms, ammunition, petroleum products, rubber, paper, and plastic (Salavrakos, 2017). This paper examines how government, citizens, and businesses worked together to promote the manufacturing of war tools during World War II, as well as the effects caused by the conflict.
U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt came up with the idea of establishing a wartime organization to control the economy. He asked for the establishment of the War Production Board. The purpose of this board was to transition industries from producing non-combat products, which comprised automobiles, small appliances, and toys, to wartime manufacturing of combat tools such as guns. The board mentioned above was dissolved after Japan’s defeat in 1945 and replaced by the Civilian Production Administration (Romero, 2018). The U.S. industries supplied almost all military apparatus needed by the allies during the confrontation. American industries transformed drastically: thus, companies producing war equipment expanded. The government rewarded companies that met production targets. Car manufacturing companies produced more cars in the U.S. The Packard industry, for example, made Rolls-Royce engines for the Air force in Britain (Salavrakos, 2017). In addition, automobile companies also built tanks and aircraft machines.
American production doubled that of Japan, which was producing wartime equipment for the axis powers. This greatly favored the allied powers during the Second World War. Citizens provided the labor required to meet the demands of these industries. Women took occupations in wartime companies as more men joined the war as soldiers (Wollney & Sternadori, 2019). Industrial workers adopted more productive jobs in industries rather than engaging in less productive activities such as agriculture. Ordinary residents were also required to limit certain products so as to generate more tax revenue for their countries (Romero, 2018). Government war bonds were sold to individuals and financial institutions. These measures ensured that the concerned nations maintained revenue and controlled inflation. Other ethnic groups in America, such as the African Americans and Latin Americans, got more jobs working in these industries, an occurrence that had never happened before.
World War II’s Effects on Governments, Ordinary Citizens, and Businesses
World War II was a wide-reaching battle that had several effects on governments, civilians, and industries. Concerning businesses, industries shifted from peacetime production to wartime production (Salavrakos, 2017). Citizens had to limit their consumption of these commodities as the manufacturing of the above tools increased. Wartime production shielded the United States’ factories from bombings, unlike in the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union. Moreover, it created numerous jobs, thus reducing the rate of unemployment in the United States. More people were recruited to work in producing war equipment (Romero, 2018). Nonetheless, manufacturing the above products destroyed economies in other countries such as Japan and the United Kingdom.
On the side of the governments, most countries spent a considerable amount of money on buying war equipment and paying soldiers. The U.S., on the other hand, gained economically as it sold almost all equipment needed during the conflict, thus boosting the country’s economy, which had deteriorated during the great depression (Romero, 2018). On their part, citizens, especially women and minority groups, took up jobs in industries. On the other hand, men were mostly enlisted in the army as soldiers and were taken to the battleground to fight. This altered women’s traditional role as home keepers (Wollney & Sternadori, 2019). People also moved from rural to urban areas to work in the war production industries.
The industries mentioned above employed a huge portion of the workforce population, which caused other non-war production industries, such as agriculture, to experience a shortage of labor. This is because citizens preferred working in the expanding wartime production sector where they were assured of job security (Wollney, & Sternadori, 2019). In addition, children were encouraged to provide labor on these farms. The Second World War also led to the division of the world into two blocs: the capitalists, led by the U.S., as well as the communists, led by the Soviet Union (Salavrakos, 2017). These opposing alliances had different ideological philosophies for reviving the failing economies after the war. There was a rise in civil rights movements aimed at addressing inequalities in the workplace as African Americans and Latin Americans faced discrimination while working in the industries during and after the war.
Conclusion
In conclusion, wartime production saw cooperation between the government, businesses, and citizens to achieve its purpose. The U.S government formed the Wartime Production Board, which successfully transitioned peacetime industries into wartime industries. These manufacturing companies were in charge of producing arms and all sorts of war artillery as these tools were produced on a large scale. On the other hand, citizens worked in these industries to generate what was needed. America’s wartime production exceeded that one of Japan.
References
Boldyrev, R. (2019). German reparations after World War II: Political decisions and economic evaluations. istoriya, 10(9 (83), 0. Web.
Propaganda is a powerful weapon designed to manipulate people’s beliefs. It has existed for thousands of years of recorded history; however, it was most prominent in the 20th century (Welch 9). During World War II, propaganda influenced people to enroll, fight, work. Let us assume that the propaganda messages used both a masculine representation of men and feminism to pressure on guilt and to invoke responsibility for people’s lives.
One of the major themes in WWII propaganda involves enrollment being a masculine quality. For example, the Royal Air Force pilots projected the characteristics of hegemonic masculinity the most due to its importance to the British army (Hitlan 3). As such, in Appendix A, the men are focused on army airplanes while women are being occupied with a picnic. The poster encourages men to enroll in the army to protect the peaceful lives of women and children. Despite that, other methods of propaganda took an opposite turn and used women as brave and strong figures as well (Boğ 15). Appendix B appeals to the women’s suffrage movement by portraying them as an essential power behind the factory productions. Another method used by propaganda was guilt for not directly participating in fights together with the responsibility for the lives of those who did (Welch 107). Appendix C demonstrates how workers’ mistakes can lead to defeats. It puts the blame of malfunctioning machines on factory workers, manipulating them into believing that they are responsible for soldiers’ lives.
Knowing no boundaries, propaganda messages tried to appeal to both masculinity and feminism, as well as pressure guild and responsibility for soldier’s lives in people who did not fight. By manipulating emotions and feelings, propaganda influenced people to enroll in the army or work harder. The posters were persuasive due to their alignment with prevalent mindsets.
Works Cited
Boğ, Eren Evin Kılıçkaya. “Women as an Image in War Propaganda Posters.” Proceedings of the 4th World Conference on Women’s Studies, vol. 3, no. 2, 2018.
Hitlan, Savanna. “Boy Meets War: A Critical and Creative Analysis of Civilian Masculinities in Britain During the Second World War”. Senior Independent Study Theses, 2020.
Welch, David. World War II Propaganda: Analyzing The Art of Persuasion During Wartime. ABC-CLIO, 2017.
This paper will seek to answer the primary research question: How effective were the Germans at applying specific aspects of the MILS514 analytic framework to strategy-making during their blitzkrieg warfare and invasion of central Europe from 1939 – 1941.
Hypothesis
The German’s use of the Nine Variables – Elements of Strategy aided them with great success at the beginning of the war from 1939 – 1941, and the failure to accurately access (and implement) the Nine Constants – Five Criteria of Effectiveness of the MILS514 analytic framework to their strategy-making process from summer 1940 on, which produced a series of failures that led to their defeat by Allied forces in 1945. This defeat would indicate that incorporating the Nine Constants – Five Criteria of Effectiveness with the Nine Variables – Elements of Strategy is essential to the strategy-making process.
Concise Description
During the first part of WWII, Germany aimed to secure German territory and increase German influence, much like their ambitions that led to WW I in 1914. How Germany was going to accomplish this was to initiate a military tactic known as blitzkrieg. This blitzkrieg strategy gave them the ability to overwhelm and defeat most of Europe from 1939 to the beginning of 1940. Their means was to utilize their military to execute this blitzkrieg attack that gave them much success in conquering most of Central Europe. However, Germany’s ambitions to defeat Great Britain in the West and Russia in the East proved more feasible academically than physically. With their extended lines in the Russian front, Britain’s naval superiority, and the United States adding to the war effort in Europe, this placed Germany in a prolonged war that they could not sustain. Had the Germans balanced the elements of their blitzkrieg strategy with criteria that would measure its effectiveness, World War II would have had a different outcome.
Literature Review
After establishing the research questions and hypothesis, it is essential to provide a more thorough analysis of the proposed strategic situation. In the first part of World War II, the German military tactics primarily revolved around increasing the scope of influence and securing the nearby territories. The military conflicts during this period can be roughly classified according to the geographic areas of tension, including the operations in Poland, France, Britain, and the Soviet Union (Epstein 2015, 123). As a result, the Third Reich utilized various strategies and was highly successful in increasing the scope of influence in Western Europe (Epstein 2015, 130). Germany continually advanced its military forces from 1939 until they encountered significant resistance in 1940-1941 in the face of Britain and the Soviet Union (Stahel 2009, 153). Ultimately, the first part of World War II is associated with vast success on the west front and the strategical failure on the east front. Thus, it is essential to conduct a thorough examination of Germany’s military strategies in the period from 1939 to 1941 to apply the analytical framework.
Beginning of the War and Poland Invasion
Since the beginning of World War II, Hitler’s strategies were significantly impaired by unexpected circumstances. On 23 August 1939, Germany and the Soviet Union signed a non-combat treaty, which is commonly known as Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (Semenova & Winter 2019, 3). The agreement should have ensured the separation of Central Europe between the two nations and allowed Germany to advance in the region without hindrance (Mitrovits 2020, 17). In other words, the primary purpose of the treaty was to allocate the German military campaign on the west front, and it worked according to the plan until 1941 (Epstein 2015, 124). On the other hand, Stalin hoped to avoid the direct confrontation with Germany and make necessary preparations in the meantime (Epstein 2015, 124). Arguably, this pact and allocation of time for the Soviet Union to prepare its defenses were one of the strategic miscalculations by Germany. Nevertheless, regardless of the hidden motives, the non-combat agreement allowed Germany and the Soviet Union to overwhelm Poland with relative ease.
The Poland invasion is generally recognized as the initial point of World War II. Germany advanced its military units on the Polish territory on 1 September 1939, and the Soviet Union assisted them in the attack on 17 September (Mitrovits 2020, 17). Ultimately, Poland was conquered within a month, and divided its territories between Germany and the Soviet Union (Mitrovits 2020, 17). One of the factors explaining the success is the military strategy of blitzkrieg, which can be translated as “lightning war” (Epstein 2015, 125). This tactic generally implies the rapid advancement of overwhelming military power, frequently consisting of air forces, tanks, and infantry (Epstein 2015, 125). While there was a significant shortage of mechanized warfare units in the German army, the number advantage and the element of surprise allowed the Nazis to overwhelm the Polish forces (Epstein 2015, 126). Ultimately, the Third Reich and the Soviet Union occupied Poland within a month and annihilated any units that could potentially form a resistance. The vast success demonstrated the effectiveness of the chosen military strategies and reassured Hitler in the upcoming victory in the war.
Western Europe
The confidence of the German army grew exponentially as the Third Reich advanced further in Western Europe. The Nazi forces – also known as Wehrmacht – conquered Denmark and Norway within several months in the spring of 1940 and secured necessary material supplies (Epstein 2015, 130). A global war requires extensive funding and resources; therefore, German officials prioritized strategic preparation before attacking the Soviet Union. As a result, Denmark was forced to provide large quantities of dairy products, meat, and other stock to Germany (Epstein 2015, 131). Having recovered the resources, the Third Reich continued its advances and occupied Belgium, Luxembourg, Holland, and France (Shepperd 1996, 7). France demonstrated significant military resilience and attempted to push back the Wehrmacht advances from the borders. Nevertheless, the experts argue that the superior German tactics, including blitzkrieg, exemplary coordination, and focus on the weak points of the Allied armies, allowed the Third Reich to overcome France despite the gap in military technologies (Epstein 2015, 132). As a result, the Nazi army took control of most of Western Europe, recovered the resources, and was confident in the upcoming success of the war.
The last obstacle before attacking the Soviet Union was Britain. In the summer of 1940, Germany controlled the European land empire; however, the necessary allocation of military forces to the east borders would leave the west front vulnerable (Epstein 2015, 134). Therefore, Hitler decided to attack Britain first but significantly underestimated the military capabilities of the country. As a result, the under-numbered Wehrmacht was pushed back by the British forces, and Hitler postponed the invasion of Britain on 17 September (Epstein 2015, 135). The Third Reich decided to focus on the Soviet Union invasion instead and allowed Britain to pressure the west front. Ultimately, the Nazi army achieved immense military success from the beginning of the war until summer 1940; however, consequent operations against Britain were the first sign of military focus deviation and transparently demonstrated the incorrect priorities of the Wehrmacht.
The Soviet Union and Operation Barbarossa
The failure on the West front did not hinder Hitler’s ambitions and obsession with the lands of the Soviet Union. Having occupied most of Western Europe with relative ease, Hitler assumed that the Soviet Union was unable to develop a formidable resistance. Nevertheless, similar to the confrontation with Britain, the Third Reich encountered significant opposition, which might also indicate a lack of thorough military strategies (Epstein 2015, 136). Hitler proposed the invasion of the Soviet Union – commonly known as Operation Barbarossa – during the military conference on 3 February 1941 (Stahel 2009, 1). The plan included a short-term military campaign during the summer of 1941 to mitigate the obstacles of supply chains and unfavorable climate conditions (Stahel 2009, 2). As a result, Germany invaded the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941, which was relatively surprising due to the implication of a two-front war for Germany (Epstein 2015, 137). Ultimately, it was also one of the reasons why Operation Barbarossa failed.
Nevertheless, the beginning of Operation Barbarossa was comparatively successful due to the rapid blitzkrieg advances. Furthermore, Stalin was continually rejecting the possibility of the German invasion and delaying the defensive preparations of the Red Army (Semenova & Winter 2019, 8). As a result, Wehrmacht achieved several definitive victories in Minsk and Smolensk, advancing closer to Moscow (Epstein 2015, 137). At the time, the German officials were confident in the success of the operation; however, the Red Army proved to be much more resilient contrary to Hitler’s expectations. As a result, the focus on the short-term campaign hindered the Nazi military strategies. Similar to the operations in Western Europe, Wehrmacht emphasized the rapid blitzkrieg as the core strategy and had no backup plan for a prolonged confrontation (Epstein 2015, 138). Ultimately, the lack of preparation divided the opinions of the German military generals on what to do next and transformed Operation Barbarossa into a full-scale war.
At present, the military tactic of Operation Barbarossa is a controversial topic, and many experts argue concerning the effectiveness of selected approaches. For instance, some historians criticize Hitler for missing the opportunity to take control of Moscow in 1941 and halting the blitzkrieg advances (Stahel 2009, 19). Similarly, some experts emphasize the extensive amount of structural flaws of the German army, including logistics, lack of technological research and mechanized units, and movement of the troops (Stahel 2009, 23). As a result, the conflict between the two superpowers evolved from a short-term military campaign, which was initially planned by Hitler, to a long-term war, which Germany was unprepared for (Stahel 2009, 23). The structural flaws, lack of preparation, and incorrect assessment of the adversary power significantly hindered the progress of the Nazi army and eventually led to its defeat.
Research Findings
Having examined the major principles of the Third Reich’s military strategies by reviewing relevant literature, it is critical to conduct a more thorough analysis by applying the analytical framework. As mentioned briefly before, regardless of the methods’ brutality, the German military campaign in 1939-1941 demonstrated the vast effectiveness of the chosen tactics. Consequently, the success of the first part of the war can be explained by the analytical framework of Nine Constants and Nine Variables. The former proposes four dimensions of success and five criteria for effectiveness (Platias & Koliopoulos 2010, 18-21). The latter comprises four elements of strategy and five common strategic variables. This methodology is critical to the current work and is presented below:
Four Dimensions of Success (Platias & Koliopoulos 2010, 18-21):
International environment assessment;
Identification of the ends;
Allocation of resources;
Domestic & international legitimacy.
Five Criteria for Effectiveness (Platias & Koliopoulos 2010, 18-21):
External fit;
Relation between means and ends;
Efficiency;
Internal coherence;
Durability to mistakes.
Four Elements of Strategy (Yarger 2006, 107-111):
Means;
Ways;
Ends;
Risk.
Five Common Strategic Variables:
Geography;
History;
Culture;
Economics;
Governmental systems.
According to the hypothesis, the German military generals comprehensively evaluated the Nine Variables of strategy, which allowed them to undertake successful missions in Western Europe in 1939-1941. However, the consequent confrontation with Britain and the Soviet Union demonstrated the inability of the German army to accurately assess and implement the Nine Constants. Ultimately, the current paper focuses on the two periods of World War II, namely, from 1 September 1939 to summer 1940 and from summer 1940 to 1942, and evaluates the effectiveness of the implemented military strategies based on the proposed analytical framework.
Nine Variables and Early Stages of World War II
As mentioned briefly before, the nine variables concern the elements of strategy and strategic variables. According to Art Lykke, the former regards objectives, courses of action, resources, and risks (Yarger 2006, 111). On the other hand, strategic variables concern external factors, including geography, history, culture, economics, and politics, which must also be taken into consideration for military planning. Arguably, the Nazi army utilized both frameworks to their advantage, which allowed them to achieve immense military success in the period from 1 September 1939 until the end of spring 1940.
Elements of Strategy
Regardless of the situation, the elements of strategy, such as objectives, courses of action, resources, and risks, constitute the core part of the military approach. Similar to any operation, objectives and instruments are the core factors of planning that determine the effectiveness of the chosen framework. In the case of World War II, Germany utilized the said principles to its advantage and ensured early success in the war.
Objectives
Despite the cruelty of the implemented approaches, Hitler’s objectives were relatively simple-minded. The primary purposes of World War II were to expand the German territories through war, annihilate people of lower statuses, such as Jews and Slavs, and ensure “Lebensraum” (Epstein 2015, 123). Lebensraum – which can be translated as “living space” – was the euphemism for German global domination and the prevalence of Aryans in Europe (Epstein 2015, 123). Furthermore, several experts argue that Hitler’s objectives also included the establishment of superior imperial power, similar to the practices achieved by other European countries before (Epstein 2015, 144). Ultimately, the ambitious goals of the German government and the prevalence of nationalist movements in the country implied the notorious brutality of the soldiers. The declared objectives significantly assisted Hitler in creating an army particularly cruel to people of lower statuses and races, which, in turn, increased the efficiency of blitzkrieg.
Instruments
Consequently, instruments constitute another strategic element which is crucial to warfare. According to Lykke, this factor – which is also known as ways, strategic concepts, or courses of action – determines how military power achieves its objectives (Yarger 2006, 111). In the case of the German advancement in Western Europe, the primary instrument was the military strategy of blitzkrieg. As mentioned before, this concept generally refers to the rapid advancement of combined military forces on the enemy territory to strike a decisive blow to vital strategic positions. The speed of the strategy allowed the Nazi forces to penetrate the adversaries’ defenses without enabling them to mobilize their troops. Furthermore, blitzkrieg, combined with the cruelty of the German soldiers (specifically against Poland and the Soviet Union) created a sense of terror and inflicted panic in the enemy’s forces. As a result, this strategy allowed Germany to occupy most of Western Europe within months and was one of the core reasons for Germany’s early success in the war.
Resources
Furthermore, Germany implemented an intelligent strategy of supply recovery via both occupation and diplomacy. At the time, Germany was still receiving economic support from the Soviet Union as a part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Additionally, the occupation of Denmark and Norway allowed Germany to recover the provision and gain additional resources. According to the framework of nine variables, means refer to both tangible and intangible resources (Yarger 2006, 111). From these considerations, Germany successfully implemented the vital part of strategic elements and ensured that it had the necessary resources to continue the war. Furthermore, the prior success in Poland had significantly increased the confidence of the German army and, specifically, Hitler. As a result, the intangible resources, such as victorious achievement and trust in the just cause of the Nazi racist doctrine, also positively influenced the effectiveness of the chosen strategies.
Risks
Among the four elements of strategy, risks are arguably the weakest point of German military tactics. Many operations, including blitzkrieg in Western Europe or warfare at the British coastline, were perilous maneuvers. While the strategies were generally successful in 1939-1941, Hitler frequently did underestimate his adversaries and ignored the necessity of backup plans. For instance, the vast emphasis on blitzkrieg in Western Europe was ultimately an effective strategy; however, Germany had no reliable support strategy in case it failed. It was particularly noticeable in the confrontation with the Allied forces in France. Namely, the combined forces of France, Britain, and Belgium had a technological advantage and parity in numbers; therefore, the military strength between the Allied forces and Germany was relatively equal (Epstein 2015, 132). Ultimately, the risky blitzkrieg and superior territorial knowledge allowed the Nazi armies to occupy France; however, Germany could have been dragged into a prolonged conflict had the Allied forces better strategies and higher morale,
Elements of Strategy Overview
As seen from the evaluation, Germany successfully implemented objectives, means, and resources in its military strategies. The three elements positively influenced the effectiveness of the approach and designated the success of the country in the early stages of the war. Furthermore, while risks were arguably the weakest point of Hitler’s strategies, the implementation of blitzkrieg combined with the ferocity of the German troops had not failed in the period from 1939 to the summer 1940. Therefore, the lack of backup plans was mitigated by the overwhelming strength of the military strategies and allowed Germany to occupy most of Western Europe within nine months.
Nine Constants and Failure of Wehrmacht
Having discussed the impact of nine variables on Germany’s success in the first part of World War II, it is essential to examine the factors that led to failure in the consequent conflicts. As mentioned before, Germany’s advances were significantly obstructed by Britain and the Soviet Union from the summer of 1940 to 1942. The nine constants, specifically incorrect assessment of risks and low strategic resiliency, can explain the failure of the military strategies.
Dimensions of Success
Platias and Koliopoulos emphasize four primary dimensions of success, and, arguably, international environment assessment and incorrect allocation of resources were the core miscalculations of the Nazi army. The downfall of Wehrmacht began in the summer of 1940 due to the incorrect evaluation of British forces and Hitler’s unsubstantiated determination. The German general was confident that Britain would surrender in a similar manner to other countries in Western Europe and did not allocate a sufficient quantity of troops and mechanized units (Epstein 2015, 135). The historians remark that Hitler was obsessive with the lands of the Soviet Union and the annihilation of Slavs and wanted to save as much military power as possible before commencing warfare on the east front (Epstein 2015, 134). According to Platias and Koliopoulos (2010, 19), this strategy is a classic example of grand strategy failure due to an incorrect assessment of threats and the resources needed for success. Ultimately, the German government failed to evaluate the international environment accurately, which led to failure on the West front in the summer of 1940.
Consequently, the German government repeated these mistakes on the east front as well. While the Nazi army led relatively successful military operations from 22 June 1941 to the end of summer 1941 due to the element of surprise, the drawbacks of the strategy became transparent in autumn 1941. The failure of the initial blitzkrieg operation to occupy the Soviet Union split Germany between the confrontation on the west and east fronts. In other words, Germany did not finish their advancement in Britain and decided to occupy the Soviet Union first; however, the Soviet Union was much more resilient, contrary to Hitler’s expectations. As a result, the incorrect assessment of military power, threats, and resources made Germany wage wars on two fronts in a prolonged conflict, which the Nazi armies were unprepared for.
Identification of Ends and Domestic Legitimacy
Nevertheless, it is vital to mention that Germany implemented the other two dimensions of success, such as the identification of ends and domestic and international legitimacy, considerably well. The German government had clear objectives and identified the means to achieve them while also sustaining the propaganda on the domestic level to receive support from society. Nevertheless, despite the relative success in these domains, the incorrect assessment of the international environment and overconfidence led to failures on both west and east fronts from summer 1940 to 1942.
Five Criteria for Effectiveness
Consequently, Platias and Koliopoulos emphasize five criteria for effectiveness, which can be used to evaluate the grand military strategy. Among the factors, including external fit, the relation between means and ends, efficiency, internal coherence, and durability to mistakes, the former is subjectively the weakest point of Germany’s strategies (Platias & Koliopoulos 2010, 20). Therefore, it is critical to conduct a thorough analysis of the strategic resilience of the Nazi army to evaluate the effectiveness of the chosen military approach.
External Fit
External fit generally refers to the political place of military power in the international arena. While the domestic political environment was relatively beneficial for Germany’s military tactics due to active Nazi propaganda, the cooperation of Britain, the Soviet Union, and, consequently, the United States significantly hindered Hitler’s plans. In other words, Germany had failed to accurately assess the international political environment, participating in combat on both west and east fronts, while neglecting the threats from the United States. In this sense, Germany did not implement the external fit criterion accurately.
Relation Between Means and Ends
Consequently, the relation between means and ends regards the correlation between objectives and resources. As mentioned briefly before, initial Germany’s mistake in this regard was to significantly underestimate the British military power, essentially allowing them to pressure the west front. Hitler allocated few resources for the British invasion, which, in turn, separated the warfare into two fronts and eventually led the Nazi armies to defeat (Epstein 2015, 135). According to Platias & Koliopoulos (2010, 20), it is a classic example of overextension – a common strategic failure, where the capabilities of the selected armies do not match the political commitments. In other words, Germany had failed the correctly assess the military strength of Britain and the Soviet Union, which led to unfavorable outcomes.
Efficiency
Efficiency is the third criterion of military strategies and determines the cost-benefit advantages of the selected approach. One of the reasons for Blitzkrieg’s success was the rapid advancement, which resulted in short military campaigns and decisive victories. Nevertheless, blitzkrieg is not a perfect strategy, specifically due to the high costs of the approach (Epstein 2015, 132). For instance, during the occupation of France, Germany lost approximately 30% of its aviation (Epstein 2015, 132). As a result, the strategy was highly successful since Germany was able to overwhelm the Allied forces in France despite the parity in numbers. However, the cost-benefit efficiency of blitzkrieg has its disadvantages, and the campaign could have failed had the Allied forces been more coordinated.
Internal Coherence
The fourth criterion for the effectiveness of military strategies is internal coherence, and it generally refers to the structural integrity of warfare. The failures of Germany in regard to this criterion are most evident after the initial attacks of Operation Barbarossa. After the German generals acknowledged the endurance of the Red Army, they had to rebuild the supply chains and structural movement (Stahel 2009, 23). Ultimately, Hitler planned to overwhelm the Soviet Union in one short-term campaign, and the failure to do so significantly damaged the internal coherence of the strategy.
Strategic Resilience
As mentioned before, most of the German maneuvers were associated with high risks while paying little consideration to backup plans. In this sense, the strategic resilience of the military campaign was close to zero, and any deviation from the proposed plan would inflict severe human and financial losses. After the initiation of Operation Barbarossa, Germany emphasized rapid blitzkrieg as the core and only strategy; thus, the Nazi generals were not prepared for a prolonged conflict (Stahel 2009, 24). Furthermore, the deviation from the initial plan inflicted panic among the German officials and significantly hindered the consequent advancement into the territories of the Soviet Union (Stahel 2009, 24). This period of confusion allowed the Red Army to mobilize the troops and organize fortified defenses, which ultimately stopped Hitler’s war of annihilation. As a result, while Germany was relatively successful in regard to other criteria of effectiveness, strategic resilience was a massive miscalculation, which, arguably, led the Nazi forces to defeat in 1945.
Results
Based on the analytical framework, the results confirmed the proposed tentative hypothesis. The analysis proved that the German army followed the principles of strategic decision-making, including the emphasis on means, ways, objectives, and risks, during the 1939-1941 period. Furthermore, the extensive territorial awareness and structural propaganda increased the efficiency of blitzkrieg and allowed Germany to achieve a number of decisive victories in Western Europe. However, Hitler and the Nazi generals inappropriately evaluated the nine constants of strategic decision-making, which led to a series of failures both on the west and east fronts from summer 1940 until 1942. The analysis demonstrated that the lack of strategic resilience was one of the core flaws of the German military tactics and eventually led to the defeat of the Nazi forces in 1945. Therefore, the conducted analysis confirms the validity of the proposed tentative hypothesis.
Conclusion
The current paper discussed the early stages of World War II from the perspective of the analytical framework of nine constants and nine variables. The analysis transparently demonstrated the effectiveness of the German military strategies from 1 September 1939 to summer 1940, indicating the awareness of the generals concerning means, ways, objectives, and risks of the war. Consequently, the examination of nine constants also revealed some of the miscalculations of Hitler and Nazi generals regarding resource allocation and inaccurate evaluation of the international environment. Arguably, these factors significantly obstructed the military campaign in 1940-1942 and eventually led to the defeat of Nazi forces in 1945. The results of the analytical framework application align with the generally accepted assessment of Germany and World War II, thus, proving its significance. Ultimately, the proposed analytical framework was highly effective in evaluating the German military strategies in the period of 1939-1942.
Bibliography
Epstein, Catherine. 2015. Nazi Germany: Confronting the Myths. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.
Kim, Oliver Wyatt. 2010. “Fighting the Last War: How Strategy Failed France in 1940.” Concord Review 21, no. 1: 51-62.
Mitrovits, Miklos. 2020. “Background to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.” Central European Horizons 1, no. 1: 17-32.
Platias, Athanassios and Constantinous Koliopoulos. 2010. “Chapter 1: Grand Strategy: A Framework for Analysis.” In Thucydides on Strategy, 1-21. London: Hurst.
Semenova, Elena and David. G. Winter. 2019. “Soviet and German Implicit Perception of Mutual Threat, 1939-1941.” Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 25, no. 1: 1-54.
Shepperd, Alan. 1996. France 1940: Blitzkrieg in the West. Oxford: Osprey.
Stahel, David. 2009. Operation Barbarossa and Germany’s Defeat in the East. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yarger, Harry. 2006. “Toward a Theory of Strategy.” In Guide to National Security Policy and Strategy, 107-113. Carlisle: U.S. Army War College.
What stands out in the book, Canada at War, is the prevailing evil caused by war. Paul Kerry and Michael Wyatt use different formats of book authorship to grasp their readers’ attention effectively. The book clarifies that war cannot solve political issues among countries but rather intensifies them. Even though the occurrences were saddening experiences, the use of comic images and short caption texts made me eager to understand the entire material. However, I was left wondering how cruel these wars can be, especially when soldiers would initiate bombings on innocent people in the name of protecting their territories (Kerry and Wyatt, 2012, end of chapter 3). They are just ordinary people trained to fight and battle, but they turn into different people to the extent that they rape and kill women and children. The book emphasized the painful experiences the victims of the soldiers went through and the traumatizing memories they had. Personally, the book is an essential historical work reproduction. Furthermore, it uses impressive comic features for storytelling, making it even more enjoyable.
Review of Review
Following the publication of the novel Canada at War, several reviewers have established different grounds for reaction to it. Most critics primarily based their opinions on the structure the two authors adopted in their writing.
The first review of the novel by the Canadian historian Tim Cook inclines the book’s strengths. Besides, Cook (2013) acknowledges the authors’ commitment to grasp the reader’s attention and pass relevant messages about the occurrence of WW II through graphics and text. The second analysis of the book was done by Maria Alejandra, an internationalist, a business lobbyist, and an author at the Ottawa Life Magazine. In her review, Alejandra (2018) recounts the text concerning Canada’s involvement in the Second World War. She seems moved by the pictorial-and-text format that Paul Kerry and Michael Wyatt adopt in their authorship. The reviewer finalizes her review with critical praise of the authors outlining the role they have played not only in their fields of significance but also in the community (Alejandra, 2018). The two reviewers, Cook and Alejandra, concur that the approach utilized in Canada at War is the best for young Canadians interested in learning about the history of the Canadian Military. The two authors believe that the novel-graphic format blends accessible history with moving illustrations that don’t sugarcoat the horrors of war (Cook, 2013, para.9).
On the contrary, a review by Nathan Whitlock criticizes Paul Keery and Michael Wyatt’s work in developing the book. Whitlock (2012) states that the writers’ attempts to discuss Canada’s participation in WW II “makes the messy business seem even more confusing”(para.1) He faults the entire book starting from the introduction citing that the writing lacks an impressive grasp for the audience. Instead, Whitlock believes that they conspired with the texts and images in the book to confuse their audience. To Nathan Whitlock, Canada at War is inefficient for readers who wish to understand the historical chronology of the war and its impact on Canadians.
My conclusion about the reviewers’ analysis is that they provide an honest view of how each of them understood the book. Cook and Alejandra had an accurate idea of the authors’ works, thus positively reacting to the writer’s development. On the contrary, Nathan Whitlock could not agree with the methodology in writing Canada at War. I think Whitlock was a little bit harsh in his opinion; however, his take on the material being unessential for some readers was valid.
A Historical Issue Addressed in the Book
One of the Canadian experiences during the Second World War was strategic bombing. Strategic bombing was a strategy adopted by the military troops during WW II, in which they would target their opponent’s strategic places, including cities, factories, and railways. The move to do the strategic bombing came in place after the German Luftwaffe violated the attack military-only air force policy, “which had been set at the beginning of the Second World War” (Britannica, 2016, para. 2). Instead, Germans started to conduct militia raids in significant cities, including London, in 1940 (Britannica, 2016). Consequently, strategic bombing evolved to become an integral aspect of armed conflict. Strategic bombing aimed to demoralize the populace and damage their ability to produce goods in factories. Many bombing raids were aimed at civilian areas. As more and more planes were being shot down, both sides shifted to night raids, which were less effective but protected their bomb crews better (Markusen and Kopf, 1995).
The book depicts the issue of strategic bombing through the combination of short texts and comic pictorial presentations. In the accompaniment of readers, the authors describe strategic bombing as a series of military activities, including the bombing of the Nazi fighters on the crafts and critical cities. Book also indicates that the hardship in navigation and technological resources forced the allies to instigate the bombing of their opponents’ cities intensively. At the end of chapter three, the book indicates a visual demonstration of war crafts and parachutes with the bombers on board (Kerry and Wyatt, 2012). Although the actions were meant to cause fear to their enemy’s camp, the book’s depiction tells otherwise. The Germans under the command of the Nazis were not entangled to give up or decrease firearm production or were not even demoralized. Besides, the 9919 RCAF aircrew from the strategic bomber command lost their lives from the hit by the Nazis. More than 75% of the total, 13,498 RCAF aircrew died in WWII (Kerry and Wyatt, 2012, end of chapter 3). However, by increasing their pressure, Canadian troops forced the Nazis to invest more in defense. As a result, the resources they could have used to fight in France and Eastern Europe were lost in defense of their homeland, helped victory by the strategic bombers.
Different historians have had different accounts of the strategic bombing issue. Some historians believe that adopting strategic bombing to bring them victory against the Nazis was a good idea. However, other historical researchers believe that the concept is a source of terror attacks we experience today. There has been much debate among military historians and experts on air power and whether or not the bombing missions were effective (Manzo, 1992, 35). However, discussions about the legality of the bombing raids have lasted at least as long. According to Smith and Kennett (1963, 87), strategic bombing was offensive and has received criticism for its efficiency and savagery. He believes the issues are only a justification for evil caused by other nations that lost property to the raids and bombings.
Almost without exception, strategic bombing was unsuccessful in achieving its goals, whether those goals were to boost fighting potential and military effectiveness significantly or to gain a competitive advantage. Historical analyses indicate that in no case was a formerly dominant aspect of military force supplanted or depreciated by strategic bombing (Smith, 1977, 175). Neither was a traditional structure, purpose, or organization marginalized. It’s important to note that despite these advancements, other land and naval services continued to play vital roles and that a variety of air service missions, including surveillance, transportation, interdict, gunships, and strategic air power, were still carried out and honed (Lungu, n.d). In this sense, although a significant and valuable contribution to war-fighting authorities, the bombing campaign was not a Revolution in Military Affairs.
The book explains strategic bombing as a military approach used by Britain and America to defeat the Germans during the Second World War. I think the idea of strategic bombing was only good and effective for the time when it was used. However, I am with historians like Lee Kennett, Richard Smith, and Louis Manzo, who believe that adopting strategic bombing is as good as justifying illegal attacks on other nations. Riding the opponents to terrify the civilians is unthoughtful to me, and I think there were different essential ways to resolve the war at the expense of killing innocent persons.
Review and Analysis
The Book Canada at War: a Graphic History of World War Two is a 2012 text-graphic publication authored and illustrated by Professor Paul Kerry and Michael Wyatt, respectively. The main idea that the two authors covers in the book is Canada’s role in World War II. There were apprehensions felt after World War I about getting involved in European battles through some consequences that followed, forcing Canada to join one of the allies. The book also discusses and shows in pictures how those Canadians who earned military decorations throughout the conflict are singled out for praise
The authors, Paul Kerry and Michael Wyatt, use clear language comprised of brief factual sentences and vivid comedic pictures. Their way of presenting the information creates a significantly new format, which allows them to attract their audience’s attention. They can as well use vivid graphics modeled by real-life incidents. The writer should have probably thought about the current generation. The current generation prefers and is drawn to quick reading rather than reading extensive accounts of the war that are spread over hundreds of pages with two columns on each page.
The word-and-image format is more of an essay with numerous images than a graphic novel due to its lack of a linear plot. One scenario that deviates from this norm describes how Reverend John Foote assisted in evacuating soldiers from Dieppe and then voluntarily surrendered to aid Canadian prisoners (Kerry and Wyatt, 2012, end of chapter one). It’s a great tale I hadn’t heard before and worthy of special mention, but, as I mentioned previously, it’s also one of the rare times the conflict is dramatized. I will say without any biases that the book’s presentation conveys relevant information to the audience since it provides sufficient interaction.
The authors put a lot of hard work into the book to ensure that it incorporates crucial aspects of classroom learning. With this commitment, any student can read and understand it regardless of grade level. In addition, the book is written in English for speakers of other languages, making it an excellent resource for students of English. Even if it’s not as complex as the comic books, I used to read when I was a youngster. Even a first-grader should be able to follow along and get the point. When the authors were attempting to represent Canada’s experience throughout the war, they took into consideration not only the context but also the images. In the course of reading the book, it became abundantly evident how the various branches of the Canadian armed forces and battles were necessary. Besides, they acted as the fulcrum of history throughout the chronological and thematic progression of the book.
On the other hand, the authors neglected to provide vital components that might have been useful in directing the audience’s attention in the right direction. For me, the first parts of the book presented challenges because I had anticipated receiving some form of orientation at the beginning of the first chapter (Kerry and Wyatt, 2012). In addition, the reader is taken from one occurrence to another during the novel. For instance, during two panels, Hitler is seen assuming the post of German chancellor and beginning to solidify his authority. After this, the attention changed to the problem of how much money Canada spends on its Military. A new reader interested in learning about the history surrounding the World Wars will find this quite perplexing. Furthermore, it could be important if Paul Kerry and his accomplice could and where they sourced the information to help their readers find more information upon need.
Final Reflection
My interaction with the book Canada at War and this assignment has enabled me to reflect and understand the current co-existing relationships between nations like Canada and Germany. From the historical concepts presented in the textbook, I know the issues encountered before and after WW II. This assignment taught me the importance of giving vital information to the audience using short texts and graphics rather than writing hundreds of pages. As I interacted with the project, I learned that people might have different opinions on what one does. My current view is not different from the take I took in the first reflection because what I had seen in the comic images displayed aligned with the step-by-step undertakings in this assignment. Everything I have done was an emphasis on the first reflection. Canada showed total devotion in the Second World War despite having fewer resources to fight. However, they supplied their manpower to defend the East and West Coasts, with had been invaded by the Nazis. They could afford to go into a war while not ready willingly. Besides, I think using graphic novels in a classroom opens students’ minds and enables them to think deeply and critically about storytelling elements.
Manzo, Louis A. 1992. “Morality in War Fighting and Strategic Bombing in World War II.” JSTOR, , 39 (3): 35–50. Web.
Markusen, Eric, and David Kopf. 1995. The Holocaust and Strategic Bombing : Genocide and Total War in the Twentieth Century. Westview Press. Web.
Smith, Melden E. 1977. “The Strategic Bombing Debate: The Second World War and Vietnam.” Journal of Contemporary History 12 (1): 175–91. Web.
Smith, Richard K., and Lee Kennett. 1963. “A History of Strategic Bombing: From the First Hot-Air Balloons to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” Naval War College Review: Vol. 36: No. 4, Article 12., 12, 36 (4): 87–88. Web.
War crimes committed against humanity ought to be shade light on for the sole purpose of avoiding such occurrences taking place again. War crimes have continuously been committed by nations of the earth. This article will briefly discuss three events which should be viewed as war crimes and which took place during the World War II. The article will give the motivations behind those who undertook the actions and will clearly show why the actions should be considered as war crimes.
What is a war crime?
It is very significant to be clear on what constitutes a war crime for this article to make any sense. The United Nations definition of war crime will be adopted for the argument made in this article.
The Holocaust
Even for those who have a shallow knowledge of the holocaust, it is clear that it has been the biggest genocide to have ever occurred. Six million Jews were systematically killed without mercy.
They were lied to, gathered and led to their deathbeds just like animals to an abattoir. It is clear that the holocaust was a war crime by the fact that, these were innocent civilians (UN 1) who were targeted specifically because of the hatred that Hitler had for them.
As a matter of fact, the outbreak of the WW II had nothing to do with the Jews and it is clear that the Jews were specifically targeted for elimination. They were transported from foreign regions outside Germany and brought to the concentration camps to face their death. The Holocaust is a classical example of how the deep the hatred of men can be.
The Bombing of Dresden
This is yet another event that qualifies to be considered a war crime. The bombs were dropped in a highly populated city and there were so many deaths. Targeting of civilians is an act of a war crime and this is what happened at Dresden when the Russians attacked the Dresden. Bombing of residential houses is clear indication of targeting civilians (UN 1) and the Dresden bombing should be classified as a war crime.
The Atomic Bombs
In as much as the US might have wanted to stop the war by using the atomic bombs, it was aware the bombs would affect the civilians more than anything else. Think of the radiations which were going to affect people for generations.
The physical structures could be easily put up again after the war but the genetically deformation and resultants mutation arising from exposure to the atomic bombs would be disastrous on the human beings.
It was clear that the United States wanted to prove its mightiness but then it was done at the expense of innocent civilians. It should be noted that Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not villages but cities filled with civilians and not army artilleries. War ships and barracks are not found in cities.
It is very clear that the US was on its way to annihilate the Japanese in the most mercilessly and cruel manner. Had war ships and barracks been targeted, it could have been blamed on the war but this was not the case as civilians were targeted.
Conclusion
The above brief discussion has made it clear that the three events were war crimes. It is a war crime to gather six million people and gas them systematically. It is a war crime to bomb cities with a full knowledge that there are thousands of civilians in those cities and not even a single war ship. Systematic targeting of civilians is considered an act of a war crime and this is what happened in the holocaust, the bombing at Dresden and the dropping of the atomic bombs at Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Works Cited
UN. Crimes within the Court’s Jurisdiction. United Nations, 2011. Web.
The Bombing of Dresden was a series of well choreographed attacks on the German City named Dresden. The attacks themselves happened in the dying months of the Second World War, and were marked by four clear raids in the three days between 13-15 February, 1945.
They were implemented by missions from the British Royal Air Force and the United States Air Force. In the period, close to 4,000 tons of explosives were dropped on the city. By the time the bombing was over, over 40 square kilometers of destruction had been caused across the city with thousands of civilians falling victim.
How the bombing happened
The United States Army Air force had planned to start the raid on the night of 13 February 1945. However, on that night incidence of bad weather forced the force to abandon any planned missions, leaving the British Royal Air force to begin the raid.
Initial plans had stipulated that two back-to-back raids would be carried out within a span of three hours. However, that night, the plans changed and several attacks were carried out in order to throw the Nazi soldiers of the mark. 360 large bombers lodged attacks on a synthetic oil plant 98 kilometers away from Dresden, as smaller bombers dropped bombs in Magdeburg, Bonn and Nuremberg.
The first planes from the Royal Air force started the journey from 1,100 kilometers away and they were tasked with the role of identifying Dresden and releasing Magnesium flares to light up the areas that the areas that the bombers would release their loads on.
Next followed some double-engined marker planes which were to chart out the path that the attacks would follow. 1,000 pound target indicators were dropped in the areas around Dresden.
The markers released a red glow, which the bombers directed their aims at. The area around the Ostragehege stadium was crowded with timber buildings and it formed the primary target, owing to the combustibility of the material used in the constructions.
Later, 254 primary bombers followed carrying five hundred tons of highly-explosive bomb and 375 tons of fire bombs. The high explosives were mainly set out to cut out the water supply connections, destroy roofs, doors and windows, laying out an air-flow path to help fuel the fires caused by the fire-bombs.
Everything went as per plans with the bombers arriving in Dresden much to the shock of the military forces in Dresden. In a rush, sirens went out in the City but it was too late as the bombers dropped their cargo at the areas they had been intended.
Three hours later, a second attack was lodged and by this time hundreds of fires could be identified from over 500 kilometers away, in the air. The latter attacks saw over 1800 tons of explosives released in the area.
The next day 431 bombers from the United States Air force release 770 tons of explosives on Dresden. More attacks followed in neighboring cities, with 60 B-17 bombers dropping 154 tons of bombs on Prague. By midday, on the 15th, the attacks had been completed leaving Dresden in shambles.
Criticism
The attacks on Dresden have been heavily criticized over the years because of their non-specific bearing, causing the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians. Most of the scholars focusing on the bombing believe that the attacks would not have received as much criticism as they did had they been focused on the military only.
Pearl Harbor is located at Hawaii. This is a lagoon that was used as the main base by the US army. It forms one of the strongest US military bases. Pearl Harbor is very significant in the history of the World War II because it is the place where the war started. This was back in 1941. The attack came as a surprise since it was not predicted. Soon after the attack of the Pearl Parlor, the Americans declared a war against Japan. This marked the beginning of the World War II.
Before the Pearl Harbor was attacked, everything went well in the harbor after the US government agreements with the Hawaii leaders. However, something terrible took place in the year 1941. This was the year when Pearl Harbor was bombed killing a very huge number of people. This took place on 7th December, 1941 (Merriam 49).
Early during the attack, a submarine had been spotted by the men who were on patrol. Later, two torpedo planes approached Pearl Harbor over Southeast Loch where it made fierce blows to the harbor (Iserbyt 2). This led to destruction of two ships, which were bombed.
Although the approaching Japanese planes were earlier detected by the radar, they were mistaken for the American planes. Therefore, there was no preparation made to counter the attacks. This reveals that the US government was not expecting any attack by the Japanese government.
As the world’s highest power, America did not expect any attack by foreign countries. Therefore, there were no adequate preparations done to counter the attack. According to the Japanese attack arrangements, the attack was to be executed in two waves. The first wave attack was expected to be the main one where most of the tasks were to be fulfilled. The second wave was then to follow where all the remaining tasks were to be completed.
Influences
Long before the Japanese attack on the U.S. at the Pearl Harbor, the two had been in continuous rivalry. A few years before the attack, their relationships had worsened. The major cause of this rivalry was the Japanese action of aggressively expanding Manchuria and China (Merriam 59). Japan was also increasingly becoming more powerful and influential. Therefore, U.S. saw it as a great threat to its status. As a result, America was ready to abort any effort made by Japan to expand its territory.
The attack of the Pearl Parlor could be anticipated sometime before the attack was executed. The main reason for the Pearl Parlor attack was to neutralize the U.S. pacific fleet. This was intended to advance Japanese mission to advance into Dutch East Indies and Malaya (WW II Archives 2000).
The Japanese wanted to venture in these regions in order to get access to the natural resources which included rubber and oil. In 1930s, Japan was already expanding into Manchuria, the fact which led to intensification of tensions. Being the world’s largest power, America posed a major threat barrier to the Japanese in their efforts. In 1930s, the tension between these two countries intensified during 1930s, this tension led to Pearl Parlor attach which marked the begging of the World War II (WW II Archives 2000).
In the year 1940, the Japanese invasion of French Indochina led the American government to impose strict sanctions against Japan. For instance, the American government stopped the shipment of airplanes, machine tools, parts as well as the aviation gasoline (WW II Archives 2000).
Later, the American government also threatens to impose more restrictions by prohibiting the sale of scrap metal. Through their ambassador to US, the Japan reacted to these restriction on the ground that they were unfriendly. However, after Japanese expansion to Indochina, U.S. stopped oil exports to Japan on July 1941 (WW II Archives 2000).
After the World War I, there were many issues that were left unresolved. This was another factor that contributed to the World War II, which began with the attack of the Pearl Harbor. These led to increased nationalistic tensions that led to the World War II.
The Pearl Harbor led the United States to enter into the World War II. This attack had a significant impact on the people especially from the political perspective. For instance, it changed the minds of the people who were opposed to war and who were not supporting the war.
From this discussion, it is clear that the main reason for the parlor attack was to protect the move to the Southern Resource Area. As a result of these tensions the Japanese government started planning for their attacks early in 1941 (WW II Archives 2000). The main objective for the Japanese attack on American Navy base at Pearl Harbor was to destroy the American fleet in order to prevent any interference in their attacks.
For instance, the Pacific Fleet posed a great threat on the Japanese conquest of the Dutch Indies. However, the success of its mission could not be guaranteed in presence of stable American navy base. Therefore, the main available option was to destroy the American naval base to prevent them from aborting its mission to conquer Dutch East Indies.
Works Cited
Iserbyt, Charlotte. “What we need to know about Pearl Harbor.” Deliberate dumbing down 2001. Web.
Merriam, Ray. Pearl Harbor: “This Is No Drill!” New York: Merriam Press, 1999.
WW II Archives. “Attack on Pearl Harbor.” WW II Archives, 2000. Web.
Second World War is one of the largest wars in the world’s history. The war was a global conflict that involved almost all parts of the world. It took place from the year 1939 to 1945. The major participants were the super powers, which had taken two main positions: the allies and the axis (Chen, 2006). The axis included Germany, Italy, and Japan while the allies were France, the United States, the Soviet Union, and the Great Britain.
After 20 years of disagreement between the super powers because of the unsettled dispute left by World War I, participants decided to settle their hatred in another Great War, which led to the emergence of World War II. During the war, more than 40 million deaths were witnessed.
Other countries including Vatican City that were not involved in the war offered some voluntary aid in favor of the states they supported yet maintaining a neutral position. For instance, countries like Portugal, Sweden, and Switzerland assisted in terms of humanitarian aid to the Great Britain.
Spain acted in favor of Germany, Japan, and Italy. Vatican City offered massive aid all through during World War II, but was neutral in the sense that it supported all the warring nations irrespective of their ideological inclinations. This paper aims at discussing how the latter state (Vatican City) played neutrality roles during the Second World War. The paper will also discuss how and why the city was neutral during the war.
Vatican City’s Neutrality in World War II
Vatican City was formed after signing of a treaty known as the Lateran Treaty. The Italian prime minister and the cardinal secretary of state signed the agreement in 1929. The treaty was a collection of agreements, which were referred to as Lateran pacts. It clearly and openly stated that the Vatican City had to stay neutral and was not to act as an intermediary except in case when parties agreed on the contrary through a pact (Chen, 2006, Para.1).
In the 1938, Italy enacted a law that forbade marriage between Jews and non-Jews. The Vatican City felt it was a breach of the Lateran Treaty since the two nations had agreed that the Catholic Church would decide solely on matters concerning marriage. In the same year (1939), Eugenio Pacelli became the leader of the Catholic Church. He was named Pius XII.
He came up with various policies to protect the Jews by making an agreement with the Brazilian president to give more than 2000 visas to permit non-Aryan Catholics to be set free thus evading persecution. Before World War II started, Pope Pius XII tried to make negotiations with the world’s super powers to keep the peace and not go into war. Early in 1939, he came up with a plan to keep the peace.
He even went ahead and announced it in public. Pope Pius XII was trying to make negotiations between the European super powers to stop the war. He tried to talk with one of the leaders known as Benito Mussolini and managed to set up a meeting. The proposed meeting did not accomplish anything in stopping the war. Pope Pius XII also attempted to have Poland agree with the action of separating Danzig Free City to Nazi Germany.
This action annoyed Polish Ambassador known as Kazimierz Papee (Danzig’s previous high commissioner). Therefore, he could not accept the plan. In August the same year, according to Katz (2003), Pope Pius XII stated, “the results of war are dangerous and are certain to happen but they can be prevented because there is time to stop it from happening since keeping peace loses nothing while war loses everything” (p.61).
Therefore, Pope Pius XII believed that war was not appropriate and that Vatican City ought to have remained neutral by engaging in the efforts to prevent escalation of the war threats. Such a measure was necessary to stop any loss of human life in both warring sides (axis and allies). Vatican City, through the leadership of Pope Pius XII, held this position amid several attempts to bomb the city with two of such attempts being successful.
Indeed, according to Katz (2003), Vatican was bombed during the second world war once by German and once by British (p.56). This case means that, although Vatican City found it necessary to maintain a neutral position, it was under threat from both warring sides in the effort to push it to incline to one side, either the allies or axis. Pope Pius XII went on hoping for peace to prevail to avoid conflicts although Poland had overrun.
Additionally, other countries and France were yet to be damaged by attacking them. Nations that took part in the Second World War pursued different stands in relation to issues that troubled different people in 1930s and early 1940s. For instance, Germany pursued racism with immense furry. The racist ideology was attributed to Nazi regime in which thousands of polish and Jewish people were murdered brutally or burned to death.
Pius retaliated that the Catholic’s position was that all people were equal irrespective of their racial backgrounds (Phayer, 2008). Therefore, Vatican City was opposed to the Nazis ideology that the Polish and Jewish people were inferior in comparison to the native Germans. In fact, in the verge of holocaust, Pius XII portrayed an immense dismay on the manner in which Poland was invaded by Germans.
He requested Vatican to remain resistant to all people who did not subscribe to ethical principles as implicitly expressed through revelation on Mount Sinai and/or through the Sermon on the Mountain. In 1942 and 1943, large number of Jews was moved into concentration camps. According to Craughwell (2008), through Pope Pius XII, Vatican City objected this endeavor claiming that it was an immense mechanism of denial of fundamental human rights.
The claim is both a religious and a political opinion of Pius on behalf of the Vatican City. It means that the city remained neutral during the second war in that it was not ready to pursue any form of racial discrimination. Such an effort amounted to total segregation of global humanity. Consequently, it is arguable that one of the reasons why Vatican remained neutral during the Second World War was to ensure that human rights were respected including the right to life.
In the World War II era, Pope Pius XII endeavored to ensure that Vatican City continued to be impartial through a careful selection of cardinals for engagements. The arrangements, which would have raised tensions and animosity towards certain groups of people especially the Jews, remained unoccupied until the World War II came to a halt.
Despite the moves made by the Pope Pius XII for the Vatican City to remain neutral in the World War II, the actions he made were seen as a great violation of stance. The extent of perception of violation of stance became even more pronounced when “a German apostolic administrator was appointed in May 1942 to lead the Catholic Church in Poland” (Craughwell, 2008, p.57).
This action not only caused disagreement during the war but also led to the creation of a serious quarrel besides spoiling the good relationship between Poland and the Vatican City. Consequently, in the late 1940s, the Vatican City never appointed an apostolic nuncio to head Poland. At the dawn of 1940s, Vatican newspaper spread the news about the war (Chen, 2006).
The newspaper, which was published by the Italian government, irritated the readers since they found no reports of weather forecasting. It had to be banned by the Italian government after receiving complaints that the reports in the newspaper assisted the British to plan for attacks on Italy. The Vatican City’s defensive force known as Swiss Guard was banned from involvement in politics.
Vatican City also remained neutral by ensuring that it did not denounce the practice of isolation of people based on their diversity differences embraced by the Nazi system. Pope Pius XII refused to make any public pronouncements that would end up being interpreted as taking sides with any country in the conflict. People who represented the US attempted to influence Pope Pius XII to comment on the paining issue in public domain.
However, the pope turned them down “saying that he could not talk of Nazi’s cruel and shocking actions without involving former Soviet Union practices” (Chen, 2006, Para. 9). The altitude towards these practices by the Vatican City could not be verified. This way, it was possible to display the neutrality of the Vatican City during the war.
Vatican City, which was located in Rome, was very dependent on it (Rome). Due to the Vatican City’s location, the allies bombed the capital city of Italy. It was not the allies’ intention to violate Vatican City’s neutrality by mistake. The allies spread a number of inaccurate information many times about Rome, which went beyond Vatican City borders.
Complaints of those actions that interfered with rights were filed. Later, in 1943, Italy changed sides, with Rome being invaded by the German troops, which were to cover Vatican City. Pope Pius XII declared that the government was to go to Portugal. If he were to be captured, the College of Cardinals would elect a new Pope. During the migration from Italy to Germany, most of war prisoners captured by the Italians were freed (Phayer, 2008).
They were heading to Vatican City since it was the closest neutral nation. The people of Vatican City were afraid of hosting the prisoners since they were a group of earlier allied fighters. By hosting them, it would definitely affect the nation’s neutrality. Defense forces allied to Vatican City attempted to curtail war criminals to get into the country.
However, some strong official Vatican people offered help to the prisoners of war who required assistance regardless of commitment to their nation. During this period, reporters said that more than a thousand Jews had been found hiding in the nation, including resident areas, for instance papal summer (Phayer, 2008).
In 1943, in the month of September, Germans residing in Rome demanded to be given 100 pounds of pure gold from the leader of Jewish local community. They required it to be delivered within one day and 12 hours or they would deport more than 250 Jews from the country. Jews could not reach up to the amount of the requested gold.
The Vatican treasury had to offer assistance in terms of raising the necessary amount of money to meet the demand of 100 pounds of pure gold. The money was immediately paid to the Germans. It prevented the 300 Jews from being captured and/or deported. However, it did not take long for the Jews to be captured since, within a month, more than 2000 Jews were detained and deported even after the effort made by the Vatican treasury to save them.
Despite the Vatican’s decision not to make a stance towards the deportation of Jews, Vatican City together with the Catholic Church were praised for the effort to save thousands of Jews in that period of disaster (Phayer, 2008). Adolf Eichmann, Nazi’s regime spokesperson, made a journal record claiming that despite the fact that Vatican City did not precisely portray a certified position in matters of capturing together with mass transfer of Jews, people allied to the Catholic Church objected the Nazi strategy of dealing with the Jewish question.
He also added that they were requesting that the action of arresting the Jews needed to be stopped. A year later, a German catholic and a priest named Joseph Miller, appeared to jeopardize the efforts of Pius XII. He was a conspirator for a war a plot. He attempted to plead with Pope Pius XII by trying to act in an intermediary manner by giving out details and information about how Germans were resisting Hitler.
Pope Pius XII, trying to keep his neutral stand, approached the British Ambassador named D’Arcy Osborne and told him that he knew about the resistance by Germany’s military members occupying the ranks though he refused to mention their names (Katz, 2003: Chen, 2006). Pope Pius XII also declined to offer his help to the British Ambassador since he did not want to involve himself in the whole scandal.
He was also protecting his nation’s neutrality. Two years later, in 1947, after the war ended, the signed Lateran treaty had stated that the Vatican City was a sovereign state. This announcement was included in the Italian Republic’s constitution.
Conclusion
The Second World War brought an immense suffering to people in nations that were engaged in the conflicts. As argued in the paper, the war was instigated by a number of factors. However, the single most important cause was the issue that remained unsolved after the First World War. Nations were divided into allies and axis. Each of the divisions pursued different ideologies such as different positions on issues of racism.
Although Vatican City was included in the war through several repeated attempts to bomb it, the city remained neutral. It never took the position of the allies or the axis because Vatican believed that the most successful mechanism of resolution of conflicts between different parties was through peaceful dialogue through the leadership of Pius XII.
This reason perhaps revealed well why Vatican City maintained its neutrality position even after it was attacked by people who were inclined to the allies’ ideologies on one occasion and persons inclined to the axis’ ideologies on yet another occasion. Indeed, the contribution of Pius XII in enhancing peaceful coexistence of all people irrespective of their demographical characteristics was highly praised after the end of Second World War.
Reference List
Chen, P. (2006). World War 2 Database: Vatican City. Retrieved from ww2db.com/country/vatican_city
Craughwell, T. (2008). The gentile holocaust and Catholic Culture. New York: Paulist Press.
Katz, R. (2003). The Battle for Rome: The Germans, the Allies, the Partisans, and the Pope, September 1943 – June 1944. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Phayer, M. (2008). Pius XII, The Holocaust, and the Cold War. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
World War II is, arguably, the greatest war that the world has ever experienced. It was more costly, affected almost all countries all over the world, caused more people to suffer, and caused more changes worldwide than any other war in the history of the world.
The exact number of people who were directly affected by the war, that is those killed, displaced, wounded, etcetera, has never been established but an approximate 55 million people died in the war.
Countries that took part in the war were more than 50, with men fighting all over the world. Although the World War II effective date is not known for sure, its causes are known. This paper is an examination of the causes of involvement of America and Germany in the WWII.
After the end of WWI, countries were left broke, and without arms. This led to rearmament strategies by countries like Japan, Germany, Italy and Britain. Britain was particularly led by Chamberlain in strategizing after WWI. But most of the armies in these countries had been greatly reduced in numbers after WWI, and Germany had a better position to win any upcoming war.
Knowing this, Adolf Hitler did not sleep on the chance. He looked to expand the territory of Germany by conquering neighboring countries. On the other hand, Britain, led by Chamberlain tried to team up with France in giving diplomacy a chance on Adolf Hitler, about his unending quest for conquering countries.
This was done in the famous appeasement that a score of critics blame for starting WWII and abating the killing of Jews by Germans in concentration camps during the Holocaust (Levy 67). However, people who blame the start of WWII to appeasement, spearheaded by Chamberlain, miss the point that people who abandon diplomacy are the ones to blame for atrocities like the ones experienced in the WWII. In the case of WWII it was Hitler since he had rejected the appeasement proposed by Britain and France.
As evidenced in the above paragraph, the main reason why Germany got involved in WWII was Hitler. He is, in fact, said to be the person responsible for the start of the war. Hitler was acquiring territories with an insatiable greed.
Levy makes it clear that, “World War II happened because Hitler was wedded to an irrational course of unlimited expansion” (67). It all started with the reoccupation of the Rhineland by German troops. The Rhineland was used by the French as a buffer zone against attacks by the Germans, and during the Treaty of Locarno parties agreed that the Rhineland would be demilitarized.
This treaty was signed willingly by the Germans. Therefore, by sending troops to the Rhineland, Germany was violating the treaty of Locarno. This raised concern from the French, although they were not prepared to use military action against the Germans, but they were equipped for retaliation.
After consultation with other parties in the Treaty of Locarno, specifically Britain, France resulted to talks. Britain had no problem with Germans reoccupying their former territory, although this was unsafe for France. All that Britain cared for was that the French were not supposed to launch military attacks since doing this would lead to Britain supporting France under the provisions of the Treaty of Locarno (Henderson 16).
After German’s occupation of the Rhineland was successful, and France and Britain had done nothing about it while advocating for appeasement, Hitler became overconfident of his abilities.
This is because Germany had no sufficient military facilities, and thus if France and Britain had intervened about German’s occupation of the Rhineland, Germany would have been forced to retreat.
After this success in Rhineland occupation, Hitler made two political alliances in the year 1936. These were alliances with Japan and Italy. Hitler then started extending his success in Rhineland to other lands that were taken away from Germany.
He started by sending troops to Austria. After Austria became part of Germany, Hitler promised to stop his expansionist ambitions. He however broke this promise by claiming part of Czechoslovakia, in contravention of the Munich Agreement. Chamberlain agreed to Hitler’s demands but warned him against invading the rest of Czechoslovakia. Neither Britain nor France intervened at this point in time for fear of starting a war. They however knew that Hitler would target Poland next.
France and Britain promised to intervene if Hitler took this step. Chamberlain held the belief that, with this promise, Hitler would shy away from Poland. However, the British Prime Minister was wrong because Hitler troops were reported to have invaded Poland on the first day of September 1939. This officially led to the start of World War II, with both Britain and France declaring a unified war against Germany (Henderson 17).
The prospects of the America joining WWII were very low. This is because America had passed a bill for neutrality in international conflicts in the year 1936. After the WWI, America did not want to be involved in any other war. With Hitler’s continued expansionism into Belgium, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands, and with France falling to Germany, America got nervous.
This is because the French people and the British people were the allies of America. America then started building its military. American isolationism started to end with the exchange of its defense materials with Britain in a bid to fight fascism. This battle led to “the Battle of the Atlantic” (Kelly 1). In this battle, German U-Boats were attacking American ships believing that they were transporting military equipment to Britain. This phenomenon lasted throughout the Second World War.
The event that brought about the involvement of America in World War II was the bombing of Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. Roosevelt had announced that America would no longer provide gas and Iron for trade with Japan, who badly needed them in their war with China.
This was followed by the aforementioned bombing of the Pearl Harbor in which thousands of people lost their lives and military equipment was destroyed. Americans then got involved in the war in Europe and the Pacific. After the declaration of war, as a result of the Pearl Harbor bombing, on Japan, the allies of Japan namely Italy and Germany, and Japan itself declared war on America. Due to these events, America had to strategize.
Germany was the greatest threat to the US and thus America formed a strategy that dictated that attacks would be focused on Germany first. To prove German’s lethality was the occurrence of the Holocaust as the war progressed, in which more than 9 million people, Jews, were killed. The Holocaust only ended after the defeat of Germany in 1945, when the survivors were freed from concentration camps.
Works Cited
Henderson, Richard. Hitler and the Rhineland, 1936: A Decisive Turning Point. History Today Publications.
Levy, James. Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement policy as the cause of World War II is one of history’s myths. Primedia Special Interest Publications, 2006. Print.
The effects of World War II on civilian populations were both long-run and devastating. New military tactics, extended mobility, and the shifting balance of firepower fueled by ideologies that were deemed to be in combat with one another led to the killing on an unprecedented scale. Unlike World War I, World War II was associated with mass murders of civilians—the Nazi regime systematically targeted Gypsies, Jews, homosexuals, and other ‘undesirable elements’ (Cole et al. 623). Also, many regions were torched and leveled. The aim of this paper is to explore the suffering of civilians in the pursuit of victory in World War II.
Discussion
War and Occupation
The war became global after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 (Cole et al. 631). The allies were able to quickly reorganize, thereby halting the brutal warfare. However, in Europe, many countries were occupied with some such as Norway and the Netherlands being divided by occupation (Cole et al. 634). Collaboration and resistance took extreme forms. In Denmark, citizens smuggled Jewish population out of occupied territories.
In France, on the other hand, the Vichy regime actively helped the Nazis in criminalizing Jews. Also, the Nazi army regularly supplied Germany with products and manpower. According to Cole et al., in the period between 1942 and 1943, more than two million people were imprisoned in forced labor camps (634). The brunt of the civilian deaths was borne by the Soviet Union in which thousands of capable officers were murdered during the purges of the 1930s (Cole et al. 635). The Nazi troops captured and imprisoned citizens of the Baltic States, Byelorussia, and Ukraine.
Ethnic Cleansing and the Holocaust
World War II was thought of by the Nazis as a fight against the Untermensch or ‘inferior people.’ Jews, Slavs, and Gypsies were deemed inferior to Aryans; therefore, Hitler used the Nazi propaganda to justify the redrawing of the racial map of the world. After Poland had been conquered, a program of massive population transfers started (Cole et al. 635). Following a brutal campaign against Poles and Jews, hundreds of thousands of Germans were settled in Western Prussia (Cole et al. 635).
The inmates of mental asylums were not spared in the war. The Nazis transported Poles by the thousands to forced labor camps. Death squads raided synagogues and other places of mass gathering of Jews. In 1940 alone, one hundred thousand Jews were killed in Poland (Cole et al. 635).
These atrocities continued when the Nazis entered the Soviet Union in 1941 (Cole et al. 635). The Nazi forces stormed through Russian, Ukrainian, and Belorussian villages and massacred the men. The women and children were deported to labor camps where they were worked to death in terrible conditions. Those who were unable to work were killed. By 1942, SS troops exterminated 500, 000 Jews (Cole et al. 635). During the course of World War II numerous gas chambers and concentration camps were set up across the territories controlled by the Nazis. According to Cole et al., more than two million Jews were killed by the death squads by 1943 (635).
The Nazi scientists conducted inhumane experiments on POWs of all ethnic heritages. The period between 1942 and 1944 saw one of the most horrific waves of mass murders in the history (Cole et al. 636). Auschwitz-Birkenau was the largest death camp in which more than one million civilians were killed between 1942 and 1944 (Cole et al. 636).
Nazi Racism
The early twentieth century was associated with a new kind of racial prejudices and racial thinking that was caused by the emergence of social sciences (Cole et al. 636). According to Cole at al., “at the core of Nazi ideology lay a particularly virulent racism” (613). Seething racism is evident in a national socialist campaign pamphlet that protests against “the master plan of world Jewry” (Cole et al. 613). Prejudiced speech of Joseph Goebbels shows the anti-Semitic sentiment of the Nazis. The propagandist even goes as far as to say “the Jews is the cause and the beneficiary of our misery” (Cole et al. 612) which shows that the values of Hitler’s Reich bordered with state-sponsored hatred campaign.
The Atom Bomb
The first atom bomb deployed in a war was dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 by the United States (Cole et al. 643). The bomb destroyed 60 percent of the city and claimed the lives of thousands of civilians (Cole et al. 643). The suffering of civilians in the war was extended even further when Harry Truman gave an order to bomb another Japanese city—Nagasaki. The effects of cancerous radiation and nuclear fallout increased the number of post-attack casualties.
Conclusion
World War II is associated with countless civilian deaths and civilian victimization on an unprecedented scale. Violent tactics toward ethnic minorities and civilian populations were facilitated by the employment of new technologies and were aimed at the promotion of collaboration and the spread of terror. Migration, dispossession, persecution, and hunger during and after the war extended the suffering of civilian populations.
Work Cited
Cole, Joshua, et al. Western Civilizations. Vol. 2, 3rd ed., W.W. Norton & Company, 2012.