WWII Buffs--Some Questions...

[Chief Rum]

I am reading a neat little fact book on American history, and just got through the WWII section. Some questions occurred to me as I read it, and I was wondering if you history buffs could enlighten me:

1) Why did Japan attack Pearl Harbor when they did? What possible good does it do them to bring the U.S. into the war at this point? I would have thought it better to wait until the UK fell to Germany (assuming that would have eventually happened) and get an even stronger stronghold on China before tackling that monster (and hopefully with unhindered German aid).

2) Why Poland? I guess I don't get why Poland was the breaking point. England and France let Germany re-arm, let them annex Austria and then the Sudetenland. Why was Poland the straw?

3) Why does Hitler encourage his U-boats to attack U.S. shipping? Is it just because Roosevelt was supplying Britain with arms and supplies and what not? Germany had England in a bad spot, even with the failed (if brutal) air war. Hitler could have waited them out or even kept bombing (or waited for his V-rockets to develop). Kinda like Japan--why on Earth would Hitler want to bring the U.S. into the war (especially before finishing off England)?

4) I understand early on, ravaged by the just finished civil war, but why didn't the Nazi and Mussolini-supported fascist regime under Franco in Spain enter the war on the side of the Axis at some point? They were probably too torn apart to help with France in 1940, but might they not have had a big impact in North Africa in 1943, and in slowing down the Allied invasion in 1944?

5) Am I wrong in thinking France and the Low Countries are more or less flatlands? Why would Germany choose to make stands against invasion in these areas, instead of relying on the waterways like the Rhine as a defense point, or the Alps in the south?

6) Was it really just ego that led to Hitler invading the Soviet Union? I mean, how does someone who had done so well to that point make such a phenomenally stupid error?

7) Is it true that Roosevelt and the high commanders of the Navy were racist against Japanese to the point they actually legitamitely thought Japanese pilots would be too "near-sighted" to be effective pilots?

8) After the Allies took Sicily, didn't they pretty much control the Mediterranean seaways? Why did it take so long for the Allies to get through to the trapped beachhead at Anzio (and from land)? Hell, land more troops and break through that!

9) The U.S. had several strong victories in the sea against Japan around Coral Sea and Midway and were controlling most of the ocean war zone west of the Marianas and around Hawaii and Australia. So why weren't supplies able to get to American troops on Guadalcanal, such that they had to live off of local foliage for a while?

10) Why did the Allies massively bomb Dresden, which apparently had no strategic value whatsoever? The bombing campaigns against both Germany and Japan near the end of the war seemed particularly over-kill. Was it an "Eye for an Eye" attitude from the bombings of England and Pearl Harbor?

11) And speaking of bombings, did the canals in Tokyo really boil when the U.S. pretty much massively destroyed the city with a firebomb attack in 1945? And what on Earth were the Japanese thinking to not surrender right then and there (and instead put the U.S. in the position to choose to use the atomic bomb)?

All right, sorry to bug you guys. Just interested to know.

[Bubba Wheels]

Best series on WW2 ever made is A&Es World at War narrated by Laurence Olivier. All these questions are answered in depth.

The answer to 10. yes

[Buccaneer]

Best series on WW2 ever made is A&Es World at War narrated by Laurence Olivier. All these questions are answered in depth.


No way! An A&E TV special offers answers to all of these questions? In-depth????

Seriously. Do you have ADD? You seem to only read in soundbites or internet quips.

Chief, those are great questions. Sorry to threadjack. What was the book you read?

[JPhillips]

A bit much for me to tackle tonight, but I'll do a couple and answer more tomorrow if needed.

1) To some degree that's a mystery. There wasn't close communication between the Japanese and Germans, so it never was planned at that level. Although to be fair the Axis was never the tightly woven alliance that the Allies were. From what I've read there was a fear that Japan was going to get weaker due to a lack of oil and the U.S. was going to get stronger as we were tentatively making preparations for war. The number of roughly simultaneous attacks on U.S. interests were designed to force a quick compromise. Yamamoto was one of the only ones who saw the fatal miscalculation in that strategy.

3) Hitler felt the U.S. was aiding the Brits enough to be in a de facto state of war. One interesting counterfactual I read supposed that Hitler never declared war, but intensified U-Boat attacks. Would Roosevelt have been able to direct large amounts of resources to Europe without a formal declaration of war from Germany?

5) There was a major defensive line at the Rhine, but the occupied countries had to have strong garrison forces to keep them under control.. The Atlantic is also an excellent defensive barrier and Rommel believed that the only chance to stop an invasion was at the coast.

That should get things started.

[Bubba Wheels]

No way! An A&E TV special offers answers to all of these questions? In-depth????

Seriously. Do you have ADD? You seem to only read in soundbites or internet quips.

Chief, those are great questions. Sorry to threadjack. What was the book you read?

Allright jackmaster, this particular series is above and beyond the rest. No matter how well someone answers each and every question here, if Chief is really interested in the whole of the war this would be well worth his time. :rolleyes:

[Chief Rum]

No way! An A&E TV special offers answers to all of these questions? In-depth????

Seriously. Do you have ADD? You seem to only read in soundbites or internet quips.

Chief, those are great questions. Sorry to threadjack. What was the book you read?

Dont Know Much About History: Everything You Need to Know About American History But Never Learned by Kenneth C. Davis.

A terrific read. He started it in 1989, and has updated it since. I am reading the version that was updated up through the Sept 11 attacks.

WWII is where I am at right now (or just after), but the entire read from Columbus times forward has been enlightening.

[Buccaneer]

That's good, anything by Kenneth Davis will be readable and educational.

[Chief Rum]

Best series on WW2 ever made is A&Es World at War narrated by Laurence Olivier. All these questions are answered in depth.

The answer to 10. yes

Thanks, Bubba! I'll take any answers or discussions here as well for the quick and easy, but I will certainly keep my eye out for that series. Is it the kind that A&E will throw out there again every now and then like on a Memorial Day weekend or am I better off trying to find it somewhere?

[Buccaneer]

Chief, for #1, you could check out Chapter 22, "Who Was to Blame for Pearl Harbor" in the book, Unsolved Mysteries of American History by Paul Aron. Unless, of course, you would rather watch TV. :)

[Bubba Wheels]

Thanks, Bubba! I'll take any answers or discussions here as well for the quick and easy, but I will certainly keep my eye out for that series. Is it the kind that A&E will throw out there again every now and then like on a Memorial Day weekend or am I better off trying to find it somewhere?

It does come along every once in a while, but the better bet might be trying to find it in the library. I got the series over the holidays as a gift, but its pretty steep at something like $100-$150. What I particularly like about it is that its minus any American bias (funny coming from me, right?) and its all from documentaries made at the time with sound effects dubbed in.

[Chief Rum]

A bit much for me to tackle tonight, but I'll do a couple and answer more tomorrow if needed.

1) To some degree that's a mystery. There wasn't close communication between the Japanese and Germans, so it never was planned at that level. Although to be fair the Axis was never the tightly woven alliance that the Allies were. From what I've read there was a fear that Japan was going to get weaker due to a lack of oil and the U.S. was going to get stronger as we were tentatively making preparations for war. The number of roughly simultaneous attacks on U.S. interests were designed to force a quick compromise. Yamamoto was one of the only ones who saw the fatal miscalculation in that strategy.

3) Hitler felt the U.S. was aiding the Brits enough to be in a de facto state of war. One interesting counterfactual I read supposed that Hitler never declared war, but intensified U-Boat attacks. Would Roosevelt have been able to direct large amounts of resources to Europe without a formal declaration of war from Germany?

5) There was a major defensive line at the Rhine, but the occupied countries had to have strong garrison forces to keep them under control.. The Atlantic is also an excellent defensive barrier and Rommel believed that the only chance to stop an invasion was at the coast.

That should get things started.

Thanks, JPhillips. Interesting responses. I can definitely see the oil issue in #1. I believe the States were the primary source for Japan's oil at that point, right? I know Roosevelt put a stop to that prior to Pearl Harbor (and also that Japan thought doing so was an act of war and a reason for the eventual attack).

I think if Japan really felt they could not defeat the U.S. except in that situation (at least in the short term), I would have thought it better to try to "cool" it with the Americans and strengthen their control in China, which I believe has a lot of natural resources. Of course, the U.S. was demanding Japan leave China, IIRC. So maybe one was not possible with the other.

Interesting what if on #3. No matter how Hitler "felt" about the U.S. attitude, it was just plain dumb for him to actually act to bring the U.S. into the war with the U-boat attacks and declaring war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor. Although with continued U-boat attacks, I think Roosevelt would have ended up with the votes to finally break the isolationist hold on the country. Only option for Hitler, IMO (besides, oh I don't know, not invading the Soviet Union), would have been to cool it on the U-boat attacks and not give the U.S. reasons to get into the war than they already had.

So Rommel was a key factor in planning the Atlantic coast defense? I thought he was killed (executed) before DDay, but then I guess he could still have been part of the planning.

[DaddyTorgo]

re 1) Jphillips is essentially correct. The U.S. was fearful of Japan's expanding influence in Asia and was squeezing their oil supply. Japan was running out of oil to conduct their offensive operations in Asia, and saw a strike against the U.S. to back us off as their only possible option.

[Chief Rum]

Chief, for #1, you could check out Chapter 22, "Who Was to Blame for Pearl Harbor" in the book, Unsolved Mysteries of American History by Paul Aron. Unless, of course, you would rather watch TV. :)

Heh, I do both. :) Thanks!

[st.cronin]

1) Why did Japan attack Pearl Harbor when they did? What possible good does it do them to bring the U.S. into the war at this point? I would have thought it better to wait until the UK fell to Germany (assuming that would have eventually happened) and get an even stronger stronghold on China before tackling that monster (and hopefully with unhindered German aid).

The expectation was that by sinking the US fleet (or as much of it as possible) Japan would have an insurmountable Naval power advantage.

2) Why Poland? I guess I don't get why Poland was the breaking point. England and France let Germany re-arm, let them annex Austria and then the Sudetenland. Why was Poland the straw?[/quote

I think the answer to this is partly that the political landscape had shifted in the UK.

[QUOTE=Chief Rum;1658850]4) I understand early on, ravaged by the just finished civil war, but why didn't the Nazi and Mussolini-supported fascist regime under Franco in Spain enter the war on the side of the Axis at some point? They were probably too torn apart to help with France in 1940, but might they not have had a big impact in North Africa in 1943, and in slowing down the Allied invasion in 1944?

There was a lot of pressure from Germany and Italy, but Franco had a ton of internal problems. Had Spain tried to wage war, its likely that Civil War would have re-ignited at home.

6) Was it really just ego that led to Hitler invading the Soviet Union? I mean, how does someone who had done so well to that point make such a phenomenally stupid error?

It was also hatred. One of Hitler's prime motivations was to crush the Bear.

[JPhillips]

Chief: Rommel built the Atlantic wall after he was assigned there in early 1944. He was alive on D-Day, but was away from the front. His absence contributed to a slow response from the Germans that may have sealed their fate. Rommel killed himself a few weeks after the invasion when he was caught up in the failed assassination plot.

[Izulde]

[quote]
1) Why did Japan attack Pearl Harbor when they did? What possible good does it do them to bring the U.S. into the war at this point? I would have thought it better to wait until the UK fell to Germany (assuming that would have eventually happened) and get an even stronger stronghold on China before tackling that monster (and hopefully with unhindered German aid).

Long story short, there was a lot of argument and debate about this plan, with the Japanese High Admiral against it, because he recognized its pitfalls, and everyone else for it. From what I can remember (I'd have to find my notes somewhere), in addition to the politicking that surrounded it, the Japanese could very well have severely damaged the U.S. Navy had they turned around that day and gone back to finish the job at Pearl Harbor, because it was really only half-done.

I think part of the reason why the Japanese didn't wait was because they felt it was best to engineer a surprise attack on the US and hopefully knock them out of the war early, before the American war machine had a chance to get rolling.


2) Why Poland? I guess I don't get why Poland was the breaking point. England and France let Germany re-arm, let them annex Austria and then the Sudetenland. Why was Poland the straw?

My guess would be that's the point where they finally realized that appeasement wouldn't work. :D Seriously though, I'm sure it's more complex than that... though I honestly can't remember when the shift from Chamberlin to Churchill happened in the UK.


4) I understand early on, ravaged by the just finished civil war, but why didn't the Nazi and Mussolini-supported fascist regime under Franco in Spain enter the war on the side of the Axis at some point? They were probably too torn apart to help with France in 1940, but might they not have had a big impact in North Africa in 1943, and in slowing down the Allied invasion in 1944?

Icy could probably answer this better than I could, but my impression is Spain was so utterly devastated as a country by the Civil War that they were still in the act of getting back on their feet and stabilized.


6) Was it really just ego that led to Hitler invading the Soviet Union? I mean, how does someone who had done so well to that point make such a phenomenally stupid error?

Resources. Conquer the Soviet Union and Germany's unstoppable because Russia was extremely rich in the resources needed to run a wartime economy.

Take all my answers with a giant grain of salt. It's been several years since I've had the in-depth course on World War II and I'm not a historian. But it's just some more food for thought.

[Chief Rum]

Chief: Rommel built the Atlantic wall after he was assigned there in early 1944. He was alive on D-Day, but was away from the front. His absence contributed to a slow response from the Germans that may have sealed their fate. Rommel killed himself a few weeks after the invasion when he was caught up in the failed assassination plot.

Ah, I knew he died for his role in the plot (is that what Tom Cruise's new movie is based on, BTW?), but I thought he was executed, not committed suicide.

[Chief Rum]

[QUOTE=Chief Rum;1658850]2) Why Poland? I guess I don't get why Poland was the breaking point. England and France let Germany re-arm, let them annex Austria and then the Sudetenland. Why was Poland the straw?[/quote

I think the answer to this is partly that the political landscape had shifted in the UK.

Good answers all, tahnks, cronin. This particular one stands out for me. Chamberlain was a freakin' tool. Wasn't the invasion of Czechoslavakia, though, under Churchill?

[Bubba Wheels]

Russia was always the big prize Hitler was going for, 'Living Space' for Germans. Everything else he took was just gravey and eliminating threats. France had the strongest army at the time and had to be neutralized. The oil in the caucuses was the thing Hitler was shooting for in the initial phase after invading Russia.

[Chief Rum]

Oh, and if I don't respond directly, thanks to everyone who is responding. I am reading it all.

[st.cronin]

[QUOTE=st.cronin;1658883]


Good answers all, tahnks, cronin. This particular one stands out for me. Chamberlain was a freakin' tool. Wasn't the invasion of Czechoslavakia, though, under Churchill?

I'm a little rusty, but I think Churchill didn't take power until after the invasion of POLAND.

[Bubba Wheels]

Rape of Nanking also had alot to do with ratcheting up ill will between U.S. and Japan, may have been the thing causing the U.S. to cut off all oil shipments for good.

[Chief Rum]

Long story short, there was a lot of argument and debate about this plan, with the Japanese High Admiral against it, because he recognized its pitfalls, and everyone else for it. From what I can remember (I'd have to find my notes somewhere), in addition to the politicking that surrounded it, the Japanese could very well have severely damaged the U.S. Navy had they turned around that day and gone back to finish the job at Pearl Harbor, because it was really only half-done.

I think part of the reason why the Japanese didn't wait was because they felt it was best to engineer a surprise attack on the US and hopefully knock them out of the war early, before the American war machine had a chance to get rolling.

Thanks, Izulde! Now this is food for thought.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it early in that Pacific war that naval strategic thinking took a shift from battleship-strength to carrier-based air warfare? Who would have better known that at that time than Japan with all their carriers stock full of Zeros?

So, given that, why would they think going after Battleship Row was key, when most of the US carriers were out on the seas that day? Did they just somehow underestimate how much the carriers would matter? Or did they have bad intel and thought the carriers would be there?

Really, when you look at it from a strategic standpoint, Japan's attack on foreign holdings in the Pacific (not just Pearl Harbor) on December 7 was masterfully done. I have to think only DDay was better planned (at least from my limited perspective) throughout that war and maybe in mankind's history.

[dacman]

[quote=st.cronin;1658883]


Good answers all, tahnks, cronin. This particular one stands out for me. Chamberlain was a freakin' tool. Wasn't the invasion of Czechoslavakia, though, under Churchill?


Churchill did not become prime minister until after the invasion of France.

[Chief Rum]

Rape of Nanking also had alot to do with ratcheting up ill will between U.S. and Japan, may have been the thing causing the U.S. to cut off all oil shipments for good.

Yes, I believe my book mentioned that the U.S. cutting off the oil and its demands for Japan to leave Manchuria came at about the same time, shortly after that massacre.

[Chief Rum]

[quote=Chief Rum;1658893]


Churchill did not become prime minister until after the invasion of France.

Yup, you're right. May 10, 1940. The same day Germany entered the Low Countries.

Well, at least Chamberlain had the sack to actually declare war at some point.

[Izulde]

Thanks, Izulde! Now this is food for thought.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it early in that Pacific war that naval strategic thinking took a shift from battleship-strength to carrier-based air warfare? Who would have better known that at that time than Japan with all their carriers stock full of Zeros?

So, given that, why would they think going after Battleship Row was key, when most of the US carriers were out on the seas that day? Did they just somehow underestimate how much the carriers would matter? Or did they have bad intel and thought the carriers would be there?

Really, when you look at it from a strategic standpoint, Japan's attack on foreign holdings in the Pacific (not just Pearl Harbor) on December 7 was masterfully done. I have to think only DDay was better planned (at least from my limited perspective) throughout that war and maybe in mankind's history.

It was more dumb luck from what I remember that the carriers weren't in the harbor that day, which I suppose would technically fall under bad intel. :) I seem to remember something about the Pearl Harbor attack being only half-done in addition, and that had they gone back (and I think there may have been a directive to go back), there were more ships available in the harbor to go and wipe out.

So yeah, they did well, but they missed the opportunity to do a -lot- better.

I'll see if I can find my notes from that lecture on my old laptop when I'm back in my hometown come mid-late March.

[path12]

Thanks, Bubba! I'll take any answers or discussions here as well for the quick and easy, but I will certainly keep my eye out for that series. Is it the kind that A&E will throw out there again every now and then like on a Memorial Day weekend or am I better off trying to find it somewhere?

If Bubba is talking about the one I'm thinking of, it was made long before A&E. I remember seeing the series on public television back in the late 70's. It really was a very good one.

As for books and insights, Shirer's books are really a good read and very informative (he was a reporter based in Germany in the 30's and saw the rise of Hitler from there). Of course, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich is a must.

It's been awhile since I studied WWII. I'll have to think about some of these questions.

[Apathetic Lurker]

[QUOTE=st.cronin;1658883]


Good answers all, tahnks, cronin. This particular one stands out for me. Chamberlain was a freakin' tool. Wasn't the invasion of Czechoslavakia, though, under Churchill?

No that was a gift to Hitler from Chamberlain. Churchill was againstthe dismemberment of Czechoslovakia.

In regards to Franco and Spain, He wanted a huge amount of war material and other sundry supplies which Hitler did not have at that moment.He did not get his toys so he refused to more closely ally with the Axis. But Franco did let the 250th "Blue" division
fight on the Russian Front.

One other reason Franco was playing hardball with Hitler might have had to do with Roman-Catholicism. I also read somewhere that Franco had a Jewish ancestor

[bhlloy]

To add to what people have already said about invading Russia, one of the core Nazi ideologies was Lebensraum (living room) in the east and spreading the Aryan race there (Slavs/Russians were considered an inferior race). It was only a matter of time, which makes Stalin even more stupid for refusing to believe that it was going to happen.

If it had been planned in detail and allowances made for the fact that it was impossible to keep advancing during the winter months, I think that the Germans easily could have held onto the bit of Russia that is worth holding onto. Thankfully Hitler wasn't big on the details :)

As for choosing to defend France, it is my understanding that against an unlimited number of Russians from the east and a very well thought out Allied plan, the Germans only hope was to drive the Allies back into the sea. The Rhine wouldn't have been much good against the army of millions pouring in from the other side. Hitler's only hope was to defeat the Allies quickly in France, and then shift his entire army to the Russian front and try to stem the bleeding there. Of all Hitler's whacky decisions, this one probably makes quite a bit of sense.

[Surtt]

10) Why did the Allies massively bomb Dresden, which apparently had no strategic value whatsoever? The bombing campaigns against both Germany and Japan near the end of the war seemed particularly over-kill. Was it an "Eye for an Eye" attitude from the bombings of England and Pearl Harbor?


The Allies didn't bomb Dresden any harder then normal. The conditions happen to be perfect to raise a fire storm (same thing the happened at Tokyo). The British were trying to do this every raid but only succeeded at Dresden. The flames were so intense it caused an updraft with hurricane force winds. It sucked everything in and burned the city to the ground.

[Surtt]

5) Am I wrong in thinking France and the Low Countries are more or less flatlands? Why would Germany choose to make stands against invasion in these areas, instead of relying on the waterways like the Rhine as a defense point, or the Alps in the south?


At that point in the war Hitler had already lost touch with reality and ordered the arm fight for every inch of ground. He would not let them retreat to better defensible locations.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I seem to remember something about the Pearl Harbor attack being only half-done in addition, and that had they gone back (and I think there may have been a directive to go back) ...

Here's a link to a thread (http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?threadID=800036932&tstart=0&mod=1202954268480) about why there was no third wave, and early in the thread is a link to a couple of other discussions about that as well as a link or two to more on that subject.

Also, it's generally believed that Rommel was "allowed" to commit suicide, although a couple of alternate versions say he was quietly & quickly executed. Here's one account of the suicide version.
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/rommel.htm

IIRC, the official cause of death was natural causes & he was given a state funeral as part of the coverup of the assassination plot, although the extent of his role (and whether it extended anywhere beyond having some knowledge of the plot & taking no action to stop it) has never really been clear.

[Warhammer]

I am reading a neat little fact book on American history, and just got through the WWII section. Some questions occurred to me as I read it, and I was wondering if you history buffs could enlighten me:

1) Why did Japan attack Pearl Harbor when they did? What possible good does it do them to bring the U.S. into the war at this point? I would have thought it better to wait until the UK fell to Germany (assuming that would have eventually happened) and get an even stronger stronghold on China before tackling that monster (and hopefully with unhindered German aid).

Several reasons. First, Japan needed natural resources, primarily oil to continue operations against anyone, even China. So they decided that they would take over the Dutch East Indies which had quite a bit of oil. However, they knew any aggression in that realm would bring us into the fray. So their decision was to launch a series of surprise attacks and try to catch us, the Dutch, and England with our pants down.

Second, they needed to do things quickly before the oil embargo truly made its presence felt even more than it already had.

2) Why Poland? I guess I don't get why Poland was the breaking point. England and France let Germany re-arm, let them annex Austria and then the Sudetenland. Why was Poland the straw?

Because they had a treaty with Poland. I can't remember if there were any treaties with Czechoslovakia, but there were treaties that both England and France had with Poland that brought them into the war. Hitler was actually shocked as well that they actually decided to go to war over Poland.

3) Why does Hitler encourage his U-boats to attack U.S. shipping? Is it just because Roosevelt was supplying Britain with arms and supplies and what not? Germany had England in a bad spot, even with the failed (if brutal) air war. Hitler could have waited them out or even kept bombing (or waited for his V-rockets to develop). Kinda like Japan--why on Earth would Hitler want to bring the U.S. into the war (especially before finishing off England)?

Hitler had some complicated views on the US. However, don't forget that Roosevelt was actively trying to get the US into the war. Roosevelt was pretty high handed in his dealings vis a vis England and Germany. Additionally, the only hope that Germany had of taking England out was with U-boats. If they did not sink all shipping enroute to England, it wouldn't really be bad for England. They could just put all their goods bound for England on US boats.

4) I understand early on, ravaged by the just finished civil war, but why didn't the Nazi and Mussolini-supported fascist regime under Franco in Spain enter the war on the side of the Axis at some point? They were probably too torn apart to help with France in 1940, but might they not have had a big impact in North Africa in 1943, and in slowing down the Allied invasion in 1944?

Dunno, but I'm not so sure that Spain would not have been an even greater liability from the standpoint of a negative front.

5) Am I wrong in thinking France and the Low Countries are more or less flatlands? Why would Germany choose to make stands against invasion in these areas, instead of relying on the waterways like the Rhine as a defense point, or the Alps in the south?

Yes and no. In Italy, the Germans did a great job of holding us up, although we had our B-team down there. However, we never tried to cross the French Alps. Operation Anvil charged up the Rhone valley and linked up with the Overlord forces in Fall of 44. After Overlord, the Germans kept us tied up in the Bocage region of Normandy for quite a while. We did not really break out of Normandy until Operation Cobra. The Germans might have been able to set up a cohesive defensive line at that point, but Hitler ordered the Mortain offensive which we were able to blunt and then launch a riposte that trapped a good amount of German forces in the resulting Falaise Gap.

6) Was it really just ego that led to Hitler invading the Soviet Union? I mean, how does someone who had done so well to that point make such a phenomenally stupid error?

He always planned on attacking Russia and correctly pegged Russia as the great enemy of Europe. However, his mistake was refusing to come as a liberator which would have ignited all of the Ukraine and White Russia against Russia itself, but instead as a conqueror. Read some early accounts of Barbarossa and the Germans were originally greeted warmly by the peasants in those areas because Stalin's regime was so hated. It was only when the KGB started partisan actions behind the lines and the German retaliations against the peasants that the war took on the tenor it did for the Russians.


8) After the Allies took Sicily, didn't they pretty much control the Mediterranean seaways? Why did it take so long for the Allies to get through to the trapped beachhead at Anzio (and from land)? Hell, land more troops and break through that!

Poor generalship on the part of the Allies. Once they got a fighting general in there they broke out in short order. When they first landed Lucas had a golden opportunity, but he hesitated and squandered it. It wasn't until Truscott was put in command that things started to go well for us.

9) The U.S. had several strong victories in the sea against Japan around Coral Sea and Midway and were controlling most of the ocean war zone west of the Marianas and around Hawaii and Australia. So why weren't supplies able to get to American troops on Guadalcanal, such that they had to live off of local foliage for a while?

We did not have that many carriers in the area due to a variety of factors. However, the big factor was that the night after the landings (may have been a day or two later) there was a night battle off Savo Island. We lost an entire cruiser squadron that was defending the transports. The transports were so valuable and in such short supply (which persisted through quite a bit of the war) that the decision was made to pull the transports out.

10) Why did the Allies massively bomb Dresden, which apparently had no strategic value whatsoever? The bombing campaigns against both Germany and Japan near the end of the war seemed particularly over-kill. Was it an "Eye for an Eye" attitude from the bombings of England and Pearl Harbor?

The Dresden bombing has had a variety of back and forth about whether or not it was justified. At the time, our military intelligence indicated that it had a fair number of factories (over 100) producing a variety of military goods. It was also the largest unbombed city in the Reich. There were also some highways and railroads in the area which it was believed help cut down on troop movements if they were hit.

The bombing on Japan was a little different. I think that some of that was based upon hatred from Pearl Harbor. However, the military doctrine of the time held that civilians were viable targets of war because they were supporting the war effort. The problem in Japan was that many of the buildings were made of wood, and the firebombing was particularly devastating due to this fact.

11) And speaking of bombings, did the canals in Tokyo really boil when the U.S. pretty much massively destroyed the city with a firebomb attack in 1945? And what on Earth were the Japanese thinking to not surrender right then and there (and instead put the U.S. in the position to choose to use the atomic bomb)?

All right, sorry to bug you guys. Just interested to know.

From what I read not only did the canals boil, but people would spontaneously burst into flames it was so hot. The Japanese people were unaware that they were losing the war. The High Command knew they were losing, but did not want to admit defeat, for a large number of reasons. They felt that we would not be willing to invade Japan itself, and even if we did, we would suffer horrendous losses and give up. Others felt that it was everyone's duty in Japan to fight to the end. A lot of this thought came out of some pretty wacked ideas of the bastardized Code of Bushido that many of the Japanese High Command believed in at the time.

Anyway, I hoped this helped some. I know some of the stuff is a little disjointed, but its almost 3:00AM and I'm tired and I don't feel like looking everything up so much of this is off the top of my head.

[Warhammer]

Thanks, Izulde! Now this is food for thought.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it early in that Pacific war that naval strategic thinking took a shift from battleship-strength to carrier-based air warfare? Who would have better known that at that time than Japan with all their carriers stock full of Zeros?

So, given that, why would they think going after Battleship Row was key, when most of the US carriers were out on the seas that day? Did they just somehow underestimate how much the carriers would matter? Or did they have bad intel and thought the carriers would be there?

Really, when you look at it from a strategic standpoint, Japan's attack on foreign holdings in the Pacific (not just Pearl Harbor) on December 7 was masterfully done. I have to think only DDay was better planned (at least from my limited perspective) throughout that war and maybe in mankind's history.


One more answer. The Japanese didn't think that the carriers were the main striking force of the fleet. However, it would be ideal for a surprise attack. However, you did have a faction of the Combined Fleet command that did believe that the carrier forces were the wave of the future. That is why they spent so many resources on the Yamato and the Musashi even after the death-knell of the battleship at Pearl Harbor and Taranto (in the Med).

They were not worried about hitting the carriers at Pearl because they did not think they were the primary targets. The primary targets were the ships of the Pacific Fleet battleline.

It was not until later that the importance of carriers was realized by both sides. Let's not forget, Yamamoto's response to losing 4 carriers at Midway was to send in the main body of the Combined Fleet after Spruance. It was only because Spruance sailed east that there was no surface action at Midway.

[KeyserSoze]

There are some very interesting answers, but I want to give my view. Sorry for my bad English. Of course they are my opinions.

1-The embargo was crushing the Japanese economy. They had two ways, attack the US and get the resources of the Western Indias or give up in China. They couldn’t wait more to attack.

2-Hitler thought that England and France wouldn’t fight for Poland, as they didn’t for Austria or Czechoslovakia. Also one of the main points of the Hitler’s vision was the expansion to the east. Poland refuse to cooperate with Hitler, so the confrontation was inevitable.

3-Hitler was a gambler. He thought that he broke the English resistance the US couldn’t do nothing against a Nazi Europe. He judged that US was 2-3 years away to be a military power so, if he had broke the English in this time, the US would have so few chances to beat the Nazis in Europe.

4-Two main reasons. Franco was a righ-wing dictator, but he wasn’t nazi, so he wasn’t linked in ideology with the nazis. The second one is that Franco wanted too much (all the North of Africa) and give too little. Spain was in shambles, as the postwar was even tougher for us than the war, so the capacity to fight of the army was very limited.

5-Hitler had an all-out mentality in the military sphere. He always wanted to make stands instead to retire and regroup (just look at the Russian campaigns). He wont give up land without fights, so he ended losing the land and the armies.

6-It was an error? Just look the map of 1941. Germany controlled all the industries of Europe, from Burdeaux to Warsaw, from Hamburg to Rome. The USSR was recovering of the Stalin Purges, while the German Army seems unstoppable. In 1941 any military advisor will give more chances to the nazis that to the Red Army.

However there were two factors that change the correlation of forces.

a-As has said Warhammer the nazis acted like conquerors, like cruel conquerors. It changed the way the Russians saw the war. They saw the war as a “rapping” of his Rodina (motherland) so they were ready to make any sacrifices (in the front and in the backyard) to defeat the attack. I think no nation has suffered more in a war that the Russians here, but they never thought on give up.

b-The Nazi economy was really inefficient.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II

From this page you can see the best point of production of tanks in Germany was in 1944, when it was already lost. If they had been more efficient since the beginning of the war, they could have had more panzerdivisions, to make “more” things.

In the other hand the “reds” lost total or partially his 3 biggest cities (Moscow, Kiev and Leningrad) but they produced lots and lots of weapons, airplanes and tanks. Maybe they were worse (it can be discussed) but they maintain the edge.

7-I don’t know.

8- The (western) allies tried to minimize the errors, so they move too slow in almost every chance.

9-I don`t know.

10-The strategic bombing has been very discussed. I believe it was part of “eye for eye” and part a try to break the moral and the economic viability of Germay. Also it has to be considered that the strategic bombing was something to appease Stalin that US and UK was doing something real against the nazis while the USSR was bleeding.

11-Warhammer has read my thoughts. :P

[EagleFan]

By no means an expert but I'll take a crack at the questions to the best of my understanding. I apologize if my answers were already given as I have not read through the thread entirely yet. I also do not claim that these answers are entirely correct as I am basing them off what I have read, seen or using my own logic to try to ascertain.


1) Why did Japan attack Pearl Harbor when they did? What possible good does it do them to bring the U.S. into the war at this point? I would have thought it better to wait until the UK fell to Germany (assuming that would have eventually happened) and get an even stronger stronghold on China before tackling that monster (and hopefully with unhindered German aid).

The US was not exactly feared by Japan at that time (or Germany for that matter as Hitler saw the racial diversity of the US as a weakness) and there was a feeling that a strike at Pearl Harbor could critically wound the US forces to the extent that the public reaction would be that of fear instead of revenge. This seemed to be the same mistake that was made prior to the 9/11 attacks.


2) Why Poland? I guess I don't get why Poland was the breaking point. England and France let Germany re-arm, let them annex Austria and then the Sudetenland. Why was Poland the straw?

Not completely sure on this one except to say there had to be a last straw somewhere and I think this was more of a final reailization of just how much of a monster had been created (though the true extent may not have been idscovered for some time).


3) Why does Hitler encourage his U-boats to attack U.S. shipping? Is it just because Roosevelt was supplying Britain with arms and supplies and what not? Germany had England in a bad spot, even with the failed (if brutal) air war. Hitler could have waited them out or even kept bombing (or waited for his V-rockets to develop). Kinda like Japan--why on Earth would Hitler want to bring the U.S. into the war (especially before finishing off England)?

The US public did not want a war prior to Pearl Harbor and was not greatly on the side of supporting England in the war as the public belief was more that of isolationism. Roosevelt was stretching the envelope for support to England for what the public wanted (they were coming out of the depression and did not want war, though ironically it turned into what the doctor ordered) by what he was sending to England. Making any kind of major "stink" about the U-Boats would also reveal the extent of support we were giving England. Kind of like sneaking into the cookie jar and having it fall on your toe, you can't cry out to your mother without letting her know what you were actually doing.


4) I understand early on, ravaged by the just finished civil war, but why didn't the Nazi and Mussolini-supported fascist regime under Franco in Spain enter the war on the side of the Axis at some point? They were probably too torn apart to help with France in 1940, but might they not have had a big impact in North Africa in 1943, and in slowing down the Allied invasion in 1944?

Not familiar enough with the hisotyr at that time in Spain to answer this one.


5) Am I wrong in thinking France and the Low Countries are more or less flatlands? Why would Germany choose to make stands against invasion in these areas, instead of relying on the waterways like the Rhine as a defense point, or the Alps in the south?

Using the natural defenses of the shore made sense as it helps if you can keep the enemy off the continent all-together at that point. Giving up the French shore gives the allies a closer point to organize their defenses. Once the coasrt had been breached they began moving back to the defense of the Seigfried line to sure up their defenses. Their major mistake was already made by attacking Russia and opening up fronts on both sides and thus weakening their defense against a Western push.


6) Was it really just ego that led to Hitler invading the Soviet Union? I mean, how does someone who had done so well to that point make such a phenomenally stupid error?

Only opinion but I believe it was ego and the belief that he and his people were far superior to the Russians. He seemed to have little regard for the Russians and saw them as inferior anyway so it fits with the rest of his maniacal plan of the 1000 year reich.


7) Is it true that Roosevelt and the high commanders of the Navy were racist against Japanese to the point they actually legitamitely thought Japanese pilots would be too "near-sighted" to be effective pilots?

Maybe to some extent.


8) After the Allies took Sicily, didn't they pretty much control the Mediterranean seaways? Why did it take so long for the Allies to get through to the trapped beachhead at Anzio (and from land)? Hell, land more troops and break through that!

I believe some of that was over-confidence by the commanders at that time. I think that the early failures at Anzio may have helped with the planning of Normandy, including the much improved use of the pre-invasion airborne drop (though that didn't exactly go as planned either).


9) The U.S. had several strong victories in the sea against Japan around Coral Sea and Midway and were controlling most of the ocean war zone west of the Marianas and around Hawaii and Australia. So why weren't supplies able to get to American troops on Guadalcanal, such that they had to live off of local foliage for a while?

Not really sure on this one.


10) Why did the Allies massively bomb Dresden, which apparently had no strategic value whatsoever? The bombing campaigns against both Germany and Japan near the end of the war seemed particularly over-kill. Was it an "Eye for an Eye" attitude from the bombings of England and Pearl Harbor?

This partly depends on who you talk to. One defnese of this bombing says that the Russians asked for the allies to disrupt an and all German movement and communications and there was a major rail terminal in Dresden thus it became a target. The sad part of that is that one of the trains within the city at that time had a cargo of PoW's and not was supplies. That trains was strafed and many PoW's were killed in the raid, unknown by the pilots or high command at that time. Another theory is that it was just the next in line of cities to attack as the allies had leveled many of the German cities already. What did come ouut of this is that there was an order issued to no longer area bomb a city in which a clear military objective cannot be demonstrated.


11) And speaking of bombings, did the canals in Tokyo really boil when the U.S. pretty much massively destroyed the city with a firebomb attack in 1945? And what on Earth were the Japanese thinking to not surrender right then and there (and instead put the U.S. in the position to choose to use the atomic bomb)?

Not sure about the canals but for the not surrenduring, there was a large contingency of the Japanese army that had strong beliefs of honor and duty and thought that surrendering was a fate worse than death. There was a coupe underway among many of those in command to take over the country from the emporer and not allow a surrender as recent as the night before the surrender (even after the two atomic bombs were dropped). I try not to use normal logic to think though this situation as there was a completely different belief system held by many of the Japanese at that time (just trying to fathom the idea of the Kamakazee pilots does not compute by my logic but they had a strong belief in what they were doing).

[Coffee Warlord]

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it early in that Pacific war that naval strategic thinking took a shift from battleship-strength to carrier-based air warfare? Who would have better known that at that time than Japan with all their carriers stock full of Zeros?

It was the ongoing debate on pretty much both sides. You had your progressives who were already seriously pushing air supremacy, and you had your old guard who believed in the battleships.

As far as the carriers not being at Pearl, it was either dumb luck, or, if you are a conspiracy theorist, it was the US keeping their most important resources out of harms way. :)

They felt that we would not be willing to invade Japan itself, and even if we did, we would suffer horrendous losses and give up. Others felt that it was everyone's duty in Japan to fight to the end. A lot of this thought came out of some pretty wacked ideas of the bastardized Code of Bushido that many of the Japanese High Command believed in at the time.

We would of, we had plans to do it, but it would have been nasssssty. Amusingly, the old Sierra flight sim game Aces of the Pacific released an expansion that dealt with the what-ifs of Operation Olympic (invasion of southern Japan from Okinawa). Estimated millions dead on both sides, as Japanese resistance, particularly from civilians, would have likely been utterly brutal.

Amusingly, the (likely correct) perception of just how ungodly of defence the general populace would be was said to have dissuaded the Japanese from serious plans of a mainland invasion of the US.

edit: Wiki has a pretty good writeup on the plans for the invasion of Japan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

[wishbone]

1)Why did Japan attack Pearl Harbor when they did? What possible good does it do them to bring the U.S. into the war at this point? I would have thought it better to wait until the UK fell to Germany (assuming that would have eventually happened) and get an even stronger stronghold on China before tackling that monster (and hopefully with unhindered German aid).

I recently read "At Dawn We Slept", a book about the Pearl Harbor attack and would agree that Japan felt a lot of pressure to attack du to their supply of oil and steel. Japan had less than 1 year or oil reserves in late 1941 and felt that they would continually get weaker while the US got stronger. Japan also felt that it was their time to join the major or elite nations and be a worldwide power. Conflict with the US was an inevitable part of their expansion into SE Asia and attacking at Pearl Harbor would temporarily allow them to move at will. To a certain extent, Japan beleieved itself to be in a position where they could not meet the goals they had as a country without a US conflict. There was some hope that they could take control of SE Asia and that other countries would not fight, but I think that Japan knew what they wanted and knew there would be consequences but believed they could still win.


7) Is it true that Roosevelt and the high commanders of the Navy were racist against Japanese to the point they actually legitamitely thought Japanese pilots would be too "near-sighted" to be effective pilots?

I don't think this is true. There were negative stereotypes that may have been believed by some of the public but many people knew that Japan had been fighting in China for several years and had fought Russia surprisingly well in the early 1900s. There was also genuine friendships between high-ranking Japanese and Americans who had gone to school together or worked together.

9) The U.S. had several strong victories in the sea against Japan around Coral Sea and Midway and were controlling most of the ocean war zone west of the Marianas and around Hawaii and Australia. So why weren't supplies able to get to American troops on Guadalcanal, such that they had to live off of local foliage for a while?

I think that in the Navy at that time especially, captains were unable or unwilling to see the big picture. There were constant communication issues due to the need for secrecy or human frailty. At Guadalcanal, the Navy feared heavy Japanese attack and withdrew before unloading their supplies. Luckily, the Japanese had abandoned large amounts of food and equipment that the Americans were able to use.

[sachmo71]

Thanks, Izulde! Now this is food for thought.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it early in that Pacific war that naval strategic thinking took a shift from battleship-strength to carrier-based air warfare? Who would have better known that at that time than Japan with all their carriers stock full of Zeros?

So, given that, why would they think going after Battleship Row was key, when most of the US carriers were out on the seas that day? Did they just somehow underestimate how much the carriers would matter? Or did they have bad intel and thought the carriers would be there?

Really, when you look at it from a strategic standpoint, Japan's attack on foreign holdings in the Pacific (not just Pearl Harbor) on December 7 was masterfully done. I have to think only DDay was better planned (at least from my limited perspective) throughout that war and maybe in mankind's history.



It comes down to doctrine. There were forward-thinkers on both sides who knew that carriers were the future of naval warfare, but the high command on both sides still thought that the battleship was the king of the seas. In fact, up until Yamamoto was placed in charge of naval operations, the Japanese plan was to force the US fleet to run a gauntlet of light surface forces, subs, and land based airstrikes by luring them into a decisive battle (see BB vs. BB) in the waters close to Japan. This made the battleships the prime targets of the strike. It wasn't until after Pearl Harbor, and the loss of both Prince of Wales and Repulse, that it became clear to the world that airpower was the greatest force multiplier.
Yamamoto lamented the fact that he wasn't able to take out the carriers as well as the battleships, but the success of the attack did put the US on the defensive for the first six months of the war.

[Dr. Sak]

We would of, we had plans to do it, but it would have been nasssssty. Amusingly, the old Sierra flight sim game Aces of the Pacific released an expansion that dealt with the what-ifs of Operation Olympic (invasion of southern Japan from Okinawa). Estimated millions dead on both sides, as Japanese resistance, particularly from civilians, would have likely been utterly brutal.


My great-uncle still to this day thanks Truman for dropping the bomb on Japan. He was going to be on the first wave that was going to invade Japan.

[Icy]

[quote=Chief Rum;1658893]
In regards to Franco and Spain, He wanted a huge amount of war material and other sundry supplies which Hitler did not have at that moment.He did not get his toys so he refused to more closely ally with the Axis. But Franco did let the 250th "Blue" division
fight on the Russian Front.

One other reason Franco was playing hardball with Hitler might have had to do with Roman-Catholicism. I also read somewhere that Franco had a Jewish ancestor

Agree with it. The thing is that Franco wanted to be in full partnership with Hitler and Mussolini, splitting the conquest world in 3 parts. Hitler laughed at him as he knew Spain was devastated by the civil war, so while being a good strategical ally in the Mediterranean, Spain had not the resources to really help Germany so for sure Hitler didn't want to give Franco what he was asking for. It's said that Franco asked for too much knowing that Hitler would say no, as Franco knew that is was not a good idea to enter in the war after our own civil one.

The 250 "Blue" division was an all volunteer division (18,000 men) sent from Spain to help Hitler. Franco's condition was that the 250 would only fight against he Russian communist and never in the West front. As they were really experienced in real battles (and Hitler didn't want any foreign to get part of the victory glory), they were sent to the toughest area of the East Front.

In 1943 after the tight pressure from the Allies and from the Catholic church, Franco ordered the 250 to withdraw and go back to Spain, they refused, and Franco threatened them that if they didn't, they would lose the Spanish citizenships. As most of them were fanatics, only 3,000 came back and the rest decided to join the German SS losing the Spanish citizenship and dying later in the front. Around to 400 of them were made prisoners by the Russians and were kept in a Russian camp until well past the war, 1954.

Yes, i'm a sucker for all the WWII related stuff :D

[OldGiants]

7) Is it true that Roosevelt and the high commanders of the Navy were racist against Japanese to the point they actually legitamitely thought Japanese pilots would be too "near-sighted" to be effective pilots?

Don't forget ludicrous racism worked both ways in WWII. I've read in several recent Pac War histories that the reason the Japs never tried to develop radar was that they believed they had better night vision than whites and so had a dramatic advantage in night naval actions because they could see the American ships while being 'invisible' to the Americans.

Amazing.

[OldGiants]

A few points about Hitler and Stalin:

Even after the treaty, neither trusted the other. Hitler attacked when he did because his spies told him the Soviets were getting ready to invade him. There is considerable evidence that Stalin did intend this attack because of the positions of the Soviet forces when the Germans attacked. Most of the Soviet army and airforce were in forward positions, ones that made sense only if an attack were planned. This is one of the reasons the Germans were able to roll through and cutoff hundreds of thousands of Soviet soldiers and destroy much of the Soviet air force on the ground.

The Balkan campaign delayed the start of the Russian invasion, but Hitler knew he couldn't wait another year becasue the Soviets were growing in strength and intent on getting him.

Having finished rereading 'Hitler Moves East' by the German writer Paul Carrell (a classic, do what you can to find it) I'm up on Carrell's analysis that the reason the Germans lost in 1942 was Hitler's decision to keep a number of top notch armored units in France to protect against an Allied invasion that could not possible have come. If these units had been employed around Stalingrad (instead forcing of Hoth, Paulus et al. to rely on Rumanian and Italian formations that were underquipped) that city likely would not have been surrounded and the German offensive into the Caucasus would likely have siezed the oil fields aroung Maykop and threatened the oil in the Middle East.

That well could have been the end of Stalin and the Soviets.

[OldGiants]

8) After the Allies took Sicily, didn't they pretty much control the Mediterranean seaways? Why did it take so long for the Allies to get through to the trapped beachhead at Anzio (and from land)? Hell, land more troops and break through that!

Landing craft and reserves were being held in England for Overlord. That's also a key reason that the US didn't push forward more in the Pacific. Overlord came first, everything else was second.

[Passacaglia]

2) Why Poland? I guess I don't get why Poland was the breaking point. England and France let Germany re-arm, let them annex Austria and then the Sudetenland. Why was Poland the straw?

I always thought that Austria and the Sudetenland were seen as more acceptable because the people there were German.

[Autumn]

People have touched on it above, but I think one important point on several of the questions is to remember not to look at history with hindsight. Doing so it seems crazy for Japan and Germany to wake the sleeping U.S.A. But that is because we know what happened, and how successfuly we were able to mobilize a war industry, a volunteer army and a fierce commitment to the war. Beforehand none of this was to be assumed, the U.S. was not considered the world power that we became due to it. They did not think they were waking a sleeping giant, but rather smacking the dog's nose to keep him out of it.

As for Hitler's reasoning, I can't recommend more reading some of the biographies and insider memoirs on him. Particularly Albert Speer's book gives you such an amazing insight into what was going on behind the scenes, and how Hitler thought.

[larrymcg421]

9) The U.S. had several strong victories in the sea against Japan around Coral Sea and Midway and were controlling most of the ocean war zone west of the Marianas and around Hawaii and Australia. So why weren't supplies able to get to American troops on Guadalcanal, such that they had to live off of local foliage for a while?


Coral Sea wasn't exactly a huge victory. We thwarted Japanese invasion plans, but lost the Saratoga in the process. Midway was a huge victory, as we destroyed 4 Japanese carriers, but again we lost one of our own (Yorktown). Midway ended Japanese Carrier dominance, but they still had a massive edge in surface ships, which caused real problems for us gaining an edge at Guadalcanal. The initiative had switched to us at this point in the war, but we didn't yet have the tools to take charge.

[DaddyTorgo]

you should ask Bucc these questions. He fought in WWII

[Buccaneer]

you should ask Bucc these questions. He fought in WWII

That's not true. :mad:

I am a veteran of the Army of the Potomac.

[DaddyTorgo]

That's not true. :mad:

I am a veteran of the Army of the Potomac.

:D

[AENeuman]

Do you consider the people killed in the bombings Germany and Japan civilians?

Listening to hardcore history podcast (which is amazing) on the atomic bomb and this question just kept nagging me.

[Bobble]

In what context? Not enrolled in the military = civilians for me. Do you mean "innocent"?

[Peregrine]

Definitely civilians, if they're not in the military, but seems like that's not your question. Do you mean are they legitimate targets?

[Chief Rum]

Bumping this gave me the opportunity to re-read this thread, which I had forgotten about. Very interesting read.

[AENeuman]

Definitely civilians, if they're not in the military, but seems like that's not your question. Do you mean are they legitimate targets?

Knowing the total war effort in us in ww2, I imagine it must have been truly all consuming in Germany and Japan. Thus, why are the people who eat, reproduce, live and work towards the common goal of victory (and ally destruction) considered civilians?

I don't see how the targeted casualties in the fire bombings in Japan can be described as civilians the same way as the targeted civilians on, for example, 911.

[Peregrine]

Well that's a pretty grim view of it. I mean sure if you're working in an arms factory it's pretty obvious you're part of the war effort, but what if you're a police officer, teacher, or just a mother at home? Calling them all not civilians seems pretty harsh.

You can criticize or support how the war was waged or certain tactics, but not sure that removing civilian status is the way to do it. I mean turn it around and say that the British civilians who were killed during the blitz weren't civilians and it was a totally acceptable tactic? Pretty sure few would agree with that.

[JPhillips]

Knowing the total war effort in us in ww2, I imagine it must have been truly all consuming in Germany and Japan. Thus, why are the people who eat, reproduce, live and work towards the common goal of victory (and ally destruction) considered civilians?

I don't see how the targeted casualties in the fire bombings in Japan can be described as civilians the same way as the targeted civilians on, for example, 911.

I don't see how you can make that separation. AQ, and basically every other terrorist/insurgent group, has argued repeatedly that civilians are legitimate targets because they are complicit in the actions of the government. How is that argument any different from the one you make about Germany/Japan?

The line between civilian and combatant is also going to be blurry around the edges, but defining it as in uniform/out of uniform is a pretty good starting point.

[AENeuman]

I don't see how you can make that separation. AQ, and basically every other terrorist/insurgent group, has argued repeatedly that civilians are legitimate targets because they are complicit in the actions of the government. How is that argument any different from the one you make about Germany/Japan?

The line between civilian and combatant is also going to be blurry around the edges, but defining it as in uniform/out of uniform is a pretty good starting point.

Maybe it's just semantics. I just don't see how the destruction of a community that is enthusiastically participating (both logistically and existentially) to a war effort can be called civilian.

Ww2 seems to be the battle of the war machines. A person was just one part of the greater machine. thus, it was the goal for the other side to destroy the machine, in all it's incarnations.

[JPhillips]

Do you consider the people of London civilians?

[Buccaneer]

I had to think back to 2008 and recalled that I had not read much ww2 up to that point. I've since read much more including watching the fantastic and long World at War documentary. I think the OP were excellent.

[Surtt]

Knowing the total war effort in us in ww2, I imagine it must have been truly all consuming in Germany and Japan. Thus, why are the people who eat, reproduce, live and work towards the common goal of victory (and ally destruction) considered civilians?


Considered by whom? International law?
I am sure there is specific rules on this, I would check the UN.

[lungs]

I had a chance to visit Dresden, Germany last October. You could still see the burn marks on the foundations of some of the buildings. Wish I would have had more time there but spending a few hours in downtown Dresden was well worth it.

[Dutch]

German History Museum in Munich has a sobering tribute if you ever get the chance to go.

[Sweed]

Best series on WW2 ever made is A&Es World at War narrated by Laurence Olivier.

I agree this is the best WWII documentary I've seen. I bought the bluray version from Amazon for $56.99, I see it's $65 now. Well worth it. DVD version is $42 but the bluray has enhanced sound along with video.

It is not an A&E produced show but was licensed to them. Originally produced by Thames Television Ltd in the early 70's. I first saw it on PBS ~1975 or '76 when I was in high school. Loved it then and wasn't disappointed when I bought the series in 2012. Thought maybe I remembered it with rose colored glasses but it was just as good as it was when I saw it almost 40 years ago.

[tarcone]

Just saw this. I will throw some things out.

Roosevelt was racist. But I think that was part of the times. And to add to it, a lot of the military hated the British, calling them "limeys'. I think in the isolationist view of the United States at the time, foreigners were not thought highly of.

In WW2, there were way too many civilians killed. Yes, I believe that the Japanese and Germans had civilians killed. but the war was horrific. And that was the only way the Allies felt they had a chance to win. And it was a lot less politically correct back then. Imagine if the US bombed a city to the ground in Iraq today and kileed thousands of civilians. What would the backlash be? Back then, they were just Japs and Krauts. People from very far away. Not like today, in a global society.

Fascism and communism are about as far apart on the political spectrum as they can be. Hitler made a huge mistake going into the Soviet Union when he did. But Hitler thought his superior race would take a short time dealing with them. look at the war to that point. No one had stopped Hitler. He had run roughshod over Europe. What could the Soviets do? In fact, The German soldiers had no Winter gear for the invasion. Hitler didnt think it would be needed. Then he got stopped outside Moscow, but the big blow was Stalingrad. Losing an army. Losing a huge propaganda war.

Another reason the Pacific war took as long as it did was because the US had a Europe first doctrine. Not as many resources were put into the Pacific war. Had Roosevelt concentrated on Japan and let the UK and the Soviets deal with Germany, the Pacific war would have been much shorter.

But there was also the race for German scientists. One reason the US got to the moon first. We got the better German scientists.

Why didnt Japan surrender? Cultural beliefs. Japan was in no way going to surrender. Thats one of the reasons the US dropped atomics. Japan was in all the way. Japanese would rather commit suicide then surrender, I believe.
After the bloody battles on the island hopping excursion by the US. Attacking Japan would have taken a long time to defeat and cost a lot of American lives.

Great stuff. I could discuss WW2 all day.

Im reading The Burma Campaign right now. This is a theater that isnt very well known. But it is considered the Stalingrad of the Pacific war. 3 years in the country. And brutal fighting. Interesting to learn about the Chinese leader taking the lend lease and ferreting it away to deal with the communists after the war was over. And not using it to help the Allies defeat the Japanese.

Another outstanding book to read is Stalingrad by Anthony Beevor. If you want to read a great book about the turning point of the European theater. This is it. Amazing stories. Germans and Russians in the same building seperated by a wall and fighting it out or a Russian unit on the ground floor, a German unit on the 2nd floor and another Russian unit on the 3rd floor, fighting it out. And the conditions were brutal. And how the civilians survived. Awesome book.

[CraigSca]

Another reason for the atomic bomb was the fear that the Russians, not having to deal with the Germans anymore, after invading Manchuria would not stop there and eventually sweep through Japan itself.

Hitler was essentially right when it came to his world view of the Bolshevik "horde" - had the allies not invaded from the west in Europe and finished off Japan as quickly as it had, all of Europe and Asia might have been under Soviet control.

[ColtCrazy]

Best series on WW2 ever made is A&Es World at War narrated by Laurence Olivier. All these questions are answered in depth.

The answer to 10. yes

This was actually a BBC series that was released in the early 70s.


Wow, how'd I miss this thread? I love analyzing WWII, playing WWII games, and the like. Most of my college backpacking tour of Europe was spent going to various WWII memorials, museums, and sites. Nothing is quite as haunting as the picture of a bombed out Koln with only the cathedral left standing.

Keyser had some great answers to the original 10 questions. My 2 cents on them:

1) Why did Japan attack Pearl Harbor when they did? What possible good does it do them to bring the U.S. into the war at this point? I would have thought it better to wait until the UK fell to Germany (assuming that would have eventually happened) and get an even stronger stronghold on China before tackling that monster (and hopefully with unhindered German aid).

Japan was indeed strapped for access to resources. It was difficult for them to expand much farther without getting the US involved in the war directly. Therefore, the thought was to knock the main US fleet out and give Japan control of the Pacific to expand.


2) Why Poland? I guess I don't get why Poland was the breaking point. England and France let Germany re-arm, let them annex Austria and then the Sudetenland. Why was Poland the straw?

Everyone has made several points. A combination of political climate change in Britain and Hitler's belief that Poland would be another place that the Allies wouldn't stand up for.

3) Why does Hitler encourage his U-boats to attack U.S. shipping? Is it just because Roosevelt was supplying Britain with arms and supplies and what not? Germany had England in a bad spot, even with the failed (if brutal) air war. Hitler could have waited them out or even kept bombing (or waited for his V-rockets to develop). Kinda like Japan--why on Earth would Hitler want to bring the U.S. into the war (especially before finishing off England)?

Hitler actually had to be encouraged to expand the U-boat war, but did so to try to cripple Britain. England was indeed on the ropes after the Battle of Britain, but the Luftwaffe's change in tactics from military targets to civilian ones actually helped the British. A true invasion of Britain was probably unlikely at best, so a combination of bombing and economically starvation was the German plan for British capitulation.

4) I understand early on, ravaged by the just finished civil war, but why didn't the Nazi and Mussolini-supported fascist regime under Franco in Spain enter the war on the side of the Axis at some point? They were probably too torn apart to help with France in 1940, but might they not have had a big impact in North Africa in 1943, and in slowing down the Allied invasion in 1944?

I've actually read a lot of reasons behind this one. Spain was pretty weak after the civil war, and I've read that Franco had no interest in getting involved in the war. Franco was concerned the Allies would use Spain as a launching point into Europe and had stationed the army around Gibraltar early in the war to prevent that from happening. Interestingly enough, Portugal would have join the Allies but was dissuaded by the British because it might provoke the Spanish from joint the Axis.

5) Am I wrong in thinking France and the Low Countries are more or less flatlands? Why would Germany choose to make stands against invasion in these areas, instead of relying on the waterways like the Rhine as a defense point, or the Alps in the south?

German command believed an Atlantic Wall would be able to protect France, but by D-Day it wasn't finished and was undermanned. They did what you said after the invasion, but by then the end was in sight.

6) Was it really just ego that led to Hitler invading the Soviet Union? I mean, how does someone who had done so well to that point make such a phenomenally stupid error?

Yep. He states this in Mein Kampf, that the Germans should look east. Russia had land and resources he believed should be available for the German people to use.

7) Is it true that Roosevelt and the high commanders of the Navy were racist against Japanese to the point they actually legitamitely thought Japanese pilots would be too "near-sighted" to be effective pilots?

Haven't read as much on this, but considering out internment camp policies, especially against the Japanese, this doesn't surprise me.

8) After the Allies took Sicily, didn't they pretty much control the Mediterranean seaways? Why did it take so long for the Allies to get through to the trapped beachhead at Anzio (and from land)? Hell, land more troops and break through that!
The Allies moved slow and although Eisenhower loved him, Clark was not one of our greatest generals. Anzio did help the Allies learn from mistakes to make D-Day more successful. I'm sure part of it was also strategic. The Italian Campaign was only going so far before you got to the Alps. Invading Germany's underbelly wasn't practical so you had to prepare another front.

9) The U.S. had several strong victories in the sea against Japan around Coral Sea and Midway and were controlling most of the ocean war zone west of the Marianas and around Hawaii and Australia. So why weren't supplies able to get to American troops on Guadalcanal, such that they had to live off of local foliage for a while?
Some of this came from logistical issues from the US, which actually improved because of this battle.

10) Why did the Allies massively bomb Dresden, which apparently had no strategic value whatsoever? The bombing campaigns against both Germany and Japan near the end of the war seemed particularly over-kill. Was it an "Eye for an Eye" attitude from the bombings of England and Pearl Harbor?

That's probably a part of it, but also included the same reasons the Germans bombed London. It was psychological warfare in the hopes of crushing opposition will to fight.

11) And speaking of bombings, did the canals in Tokyo really boil when the U.S. pretty much massively destroyed the city with a firebomb attack in 1945? And what on Earth were the Japanese thinking to not surrender right then and there (and instead put the U.S. in the position to choose to use the atomic bomb)?

Not sure about part A of the question. As for part B, I think part of it was a fanatical belief in the Emperor and a willingness to lay their lives down for Japan. The US were aware of these feelings based off how hard it was to take various islands in the war. I think i read that the US estimated up to a million could die in an invasion of Japan.

[Buccaneer]

I agree this is the best WWII documentary I've seen. I bought the bluray version from Amazon for $56.99, I see it's $65 now. Well worth it. DVD version is $42 but the bluray has enhanced sound along with video.

It is not an A&E produced show but was licensed to them. Originally produced by Thames Television Ltd in the early 70's. I first saw it on PBS ~1975 or '76 when I was in high school. Loved it then and wasn't disappointed when I bought the series in 2012. Thought maybe I remembered it with rose colored glasses but it was just as good as it was when I saw it almost 40 years ago.

I agree, having watched the whole thing about 4 years ago. Great to see Stephen Ambrose looking hippie-ish. I got the 10-volumn DVD set and the last two DVDs are full of bonus documentaries (not part of the original programming?).

[ColtCrazy]

Several of the World at War videos can be found on Youtube as well. A few years back the Daily Mail was putting a DVD a day in their paper of the series. My aunt picked them all up so my dad could have a set of them. Just a great series.

[Warhammer]

According to the eyewitness accounts I read, the canals actually did boil. The effects of the fire bombings of Japan were horrific. Unfortunately, my post was 7 years ago, so I do not remember where I read about them.

Regarding Anzio, the point of the landing was to outflank the German defenses of the Gothic (?) Line. The original commander at Anzio did not exploit his surprise which allowed the Germans to prepare defenses and seal the beachhead. It took replacing him and then reinforcing the beachhead to achieve our aims.

[EagleFan]

Amazing to think how just a couple small events could have seriously changed the course of that war.

- Hitler not sending an invasion force into England and instead believing that bombing would be enough to beat them. They were teetering on the edge and I think a full scale invasion could have been a decisive blow.

- Hitler directing his army to take Stalingrad instead of going straight into Moscow. If they go direct they most likely take Moscow before winter. Stalingrad was not an important strategic city to take.

- The German army being paralyzed during D-day as they couldn't move their armor until Hitler approved. They waited until he woke up to tell him what was going on instead of waking him up.

- The German army's belief that the invasion would be during high tide and not low tide. They relaxed to where their leader wasn't even in the area during that particular tide cycle. This added to the above confusion.

- The mass confusion on the allies side during the eve of D-day paratrooper drop. Almost all missed their actual landing zones and they were so spread out across the area that when reports came in the German army couldn't pinpoint exactly where the target really was. They thought it was a diversion from what they believed to be the real target.

[Warhammer]

An invasion of England was not feasible for the Germans. The heck of it though is Germany could have essentially sat there and reaped the benefits of occupied Europe and England could do very little by herself. But instead, Hitler decided to go into Russia.

[ColtCrazy]

Amazing to think how just a couple small events could have seriously changed the course of that war.

- Hitler not sending an invasion force into England and instead believing that bombing would be enough to beat them. They were teetering on the edge and I think a full scale invasion could have been a decisive blow.

I'm with Warhammer that an invasion of England is unlikely. The English navy was still superior to the German, the British still had some strength in the RAF and those people would have fought the Germans for every inch. Haven't you seen Dad's Army? :D

- Hitler directing his army to take Stalingrad instead of going straight into Moscow. If they go direct they most likely take Moscow before winter. Stalingrad was not an important strategic city to take.

That's the thing. The Germans had the change to knock Russia out before their mobilization and manpower turned the tide, but Hitler's indecisiveness of targets (or sheer stupidity blinded by hubris - your choice) kept them from taking Moscow or finishing off the Caucuses.

- The German army being paralyzed during D-day as they couldn't move their armor until Hitler approved. They waited until he woke up to tell him what was going on instead of waking him up.

Hitler was extremely paranoid by then which didn't help.

- The German army's belief that the invasion would be during high tide and not low tide. They relaxed to where their leader wasn't even in the area during that particular tide cycle. This added to the above confusion.

Their intelligence definitely blew that one. The Allies were great as disinformation.

[Coffee Warlord]

Yeah, Operation Sealion (German plan for invasion of England) was pretty much a pipe dream. Germany would have needed:

1) Barbarossa to not happen.
2) A couple years consolidating their western conquests.
3) During those couple years, a massive naval construction.
4) More oil.

They neither had the time nor the resources to support construction of a fleet on that scale.

[ColtCrazy]

Interestingly, this played out in Columbia Games' new Victory in Europe board game. We were learning the game so I was trying various tactics just to see what would happen. I started out brilliantly. I had managed to defeat Poland, the Low Countries, and France by the end of 1939. I was rolling. I stopped to use 1940 as a build up to invade Britain. I was not successful. I had to send troops to Africa to help my pathetic Italian allies. Although I had weakened Britain's air force, I never did anything to seriously damage their navy. I had spent so much in resources that by the time 1941 came around I was not built up enough to defeat the Russians.

[Buccaneer]

Which was why it made most sense for the nazis to hit the Balkans and ME first.

[Surtt]

Yeah, Operation Sealion (German plan for invasion of England) was pretty much a pipe dream.

I think Germany would have had a decent chance if It had won the Battle of Britain.
(Assuming Hitler let his generals do their job and not screw it up.)

The Royal Navy would have been effectively neutralized. Bringing it into the Channel without air cover would be suicide.

The British Army was relatively small and had just lost (been forced to leave behind) most of their modern equipment at Dunkirk. Watching France get seem rolled could not have been good for morale, either. And face it England was not Japan, they were not going to fight to the last man.

I think it would have come down would the weather hold and could Germany get enough supplies across the Channel.

[tarcone]

While Stalingrad was not a strategic need, Hitler felt it would be a huge win in the propaganda war. Thus, making Russia weaker. Then that army was to steam roll to all that oil in the south.

England would have been a tough get. The RAFs victory really upped the spirits of the Brits. And had England been invaded, The US would have jumped in the war at that point.

The Germans did not want the US in the war.

[Peregrine]

One "what-if" I haven't seen discussed here was why Hitler declared war on the US at all after Pearl Harbor. He was under no written agreement to do so (and since when had those mattered to him.) Imagine if he hadn't, and had scaled back some of the u-boat attacks, to try to keep America busy with the Japanese. Probably the US would have come into the European war at some point, but until then the British weren't in much of a shape to mount an attack on Europe themselves. Could have bought him some time at the very least.

[ColtCrazy]

One "what-if" I haven't seen discussed here was why Hitler declared war on the US at all after Pearl Harbor. He was under no written agreement to do so (and since when had those mattered to him.) Imagine if he hadn't, and had scaled back some of the u-boat attacks, to try to keep America busy with the Japanese. Probably the US would have come into the European war at some point, but until then the British weren't in much of a shape to mount an attack on Europe themselves. Could have bought him some time at the very least.

Chances were good the US would have declared war fairly soon anyway. Hitler overestimated his own power as well as Japan's, not to mention underestimating the American industrial might. If he didn't declare, it might have bought him some time. Still, he dug his own grave with his indecisiveness (or stubbornness in the case of Stalingrad) in Russia.

[EagleFan]

One "what-if" I haven't seen discussed here was why Hitler declared war on the US at all after Pearl Harbor. He was under no written agreement to do so (and since when had those mattered to him.) Imagine if he hadn't, and had scaled back some of the u-boat attacks, to try to keep America busy with the Japanese. Probably the US would have come into the European war at some point, but until then the British weren't in much of a shape to mount an attack on Europe themselves. Could have bought him some time at the very least.

I believe that he also wanted Japan to harass Russia in the east. Japan may not have been as willing if it looked like Germany was not "on their side".

[EagleFan]

The US would have jumped in the war at that point.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. It took a direct attack on the country to get involved. The attitude in the country was to stay out of foreign wars after WW1.

[EagleFan]

Chances were good the US would have declared war fairly soon anyway.

Not so sure about that. England was quick to declare war on Japan because they weren't sure that the US would also declare war on Germany and wanted to show their support for the US. They were hoping to put enough pressure on the US to declare war on Germany.

Granted Hitler's ego (and insanity) wrote a check that his army couldn't cash when he jumped to declare was on the US. It seems he and his merry band of psychopaths seemed to be the only ones that felt they could win at that point.

[Warhammer]

Let's not forget, Dec. 8 Japan invaded The Malay Peninsula and bombed Singapore. Attacking England was part of Japan's strategy whether England declared war or not. That said, Churchill recognized that he needed the U.S. focused on Europe and not the Pacific so he pulled out all the stops.

[NobodyHere]

I think it is important to note that if Roosevelt had brought the US into the war without a Pearl Harbor attack, he would've brought a divided country. There were still a lot of isolationists who didn't want to be dragged into a war to defend Chinese mud huts or the British Empire.

Instead with the Japanese attack he brought a united country.

[JPhillips]

I know that's conventional wisdom, but I was looking at some polling data a while ago that showed the country was moving rapidly towards intervention before Pearl Harbor. In the Spring of 1940 less than 40% favored helping England over staying out of the war, but by Spring of 1941 that number was around 70%. There are obvious issues with what exactly "helping England" meant, but it does suggest that Roosevelt could have entered the war without Germany declaring first.

Whether he could have declared on Japan first is a different story, and I don't have any data for that.

edit: I went back to the paper I saw the data in and the data for "every able-bodied man should serve in the armed forces" is very interesting. In Dec 1939 that number was under 40%, but by Dec of 1940 it was around 70%.

[tarcone]

I think if Germany would have invaded, the US joins. If the US was unable to help a successful occupation of England, I think Russia declares on Germany.

I think Stalin knew what was coming. I dont think he was prepared for the start date.

If Japan had hit Russia in the East, it would have been an interesting war for Russia. But that wasnt going to happen. Japan needed the resources in SE Asia. So they were willing to stick to the peace treaty they signed woih Russia after their war.

[Surtt]

Not so sure about that. England was quick to declare war on Japan because they weren't sure that the US would also declare war on Germany and wanted to show their support for the US. They were hoping to put enough pressure on the US to declare war on Germany.

Granted Hitler's ego (and insanity) wrote a check that his army couldn't cash when he jumped to declare was on the US. It seems he and his merry band of psychopaths seemed to be the only ones that felt they could win at that point.

There would have been a lot of pressure to not jump into a 2 front war.
Go all out to defeat Japan (they are the one who attacked us) and let Europe take care of itself.

[Peregrine]

There would have been a lot of pressure to not jump into a 2 front war.
Go all out to defeat Japan (they are the one who attacked us) and let Europe take care of itself.

Well I'm sure we would have kept up our navy support with convoys and all, maybe stepped up our anti-submarine warfare efforts in the Atlantic, but otherwise yeah.

[Dutch]

One "what-if" I haven't seen discussed here was why Hitler declared war on the US at all after Pearl Harbor. He was under no written agreement to do so (and since when had those mattered to him.) Imagine if he hadn't, and had scaled back some of the u-boat attacks, to try to keep America busy with the Japanese. Probably the US would have come into the European war at some point, but until then the British weren't in much of a shape to mount an attack on Europe themselves. Could have bought him some time at the very least.

The decision was made prior to Pearl Harbor that when the US went into war, the first goal would have been Fortress Europe, mostly to legitimize the war goals...since most people despised the Nazi's by that point and probably couldn't find Japan on a globe, even despite Pearl Harbor, I think taking on the Germans was the safe first move...plus, the true threat to the US were concerns about the Nazi's trying to get nuclear power first (and so the first nuke arms race was between the US and Germany).

The Germans on the other hand, probably were keenly aware of this inevitability and declared war on the US in a show of support to the Japanese in hopes the Japanese would expand their war further to re-include the Russians...but that was a pipe dream, as suggested earlier.

[OldGiants]

Always interested in WWII. A few comments based on my recent (past year) readings.

7) Is it true that Roosevelt and the high commanders of the Navy were racist against Japanese to the point they actually legitimately thought Japanese pilots would be too "near-sighted" to be effective pilots?

Historians always cast Europeans and the US as being racist, but the Japanese have always been--and remain--the most viciously racist people on the planet. The Rape of Nanking is far more disgusting than anything Hitler did. Read up on it. The history of Japanese atrocities against other Asian people should be far more well known. As to the too near-sighted comment, the reverse of this is the Japanese racist belief that that possessed far superior night vision to White people. Thus they didn't even bother with RADAR the invention that put their navy on the bottom of the Pacific. There's a recent book about the Battle of Leyte Gulf that describes this, as well as several recent articles.

On Hitler going for Stalingrad, there's a lot of evidence that the very name 'Stalingrad' could drive him into a frenzy and taking out Uncle Joe's eponymous city meant a lot to him. One of the more interesting bits I've been reading about is recent analysis about the 'Blitzkrieg Myth" Much of this is economic data and TO&E counting of how the German army depended on horses far more than on tanks or other motorized equipment. It may be a reach, but one author asserts that a shortage of veterinarians caused large scale deterioration of the army's horses --and they had at least 20 times the number of horses as vehicles--in Russia and that was the prime cause of the failure in 1941. He mentions one kind of mange native to Russia as particularly devastating. Horses towed the artillery and brought supplies forward. Not having them crippled mobility far more than tank shortages. Not as compelling as battle narratives, but interesting stuff.

[Warhammer]

The only two truly mechanized armies during WWII was Great Britain and US. The Italian, German, and Russian armies relied upon horses to a very large extent.

[NobodyHere]

http://nationalww2museumimages.org/web-assets/images/propaganda-snapshot2.jpg