Airpower And The Allied Victory Essay

Despite the allied bombing of Germany in WWII perhaps appearing to be significant, overall, it was only such to a limited extent. It is possible to analyse the extent to which the bombing was significant in four aspects: economic, morale, international relations and others theatres of war. The extent to which they were significant will be assessed against their respective pre-war expectations. Whilst each dimension are important, I am going to specifically focus on economic and moral because they were the main objectives of the Allies, and directly affected Germany.

The technological developments that assisted bombing, the impact of bombing on the German economy, the impact of bombing on the German civilian morale and also the effects on the German war effort all help explain why the Allied strategic bombing of Germany during the Second World War was significant to quite a far extent. Each of the following paragraphs will analyse the impacts of the Allied strategic bombing on different aspects of Germany and also what factors assisted the Allied bombing campaign in creating a significant impact on Germany during the Second World War.

During World War II, Germany’s military was superior to anyone else in the world, with far more advanced technology, tactics, and weaponry. They had a fearless leader who would stop at nothing to make his country great again. Their closest rival, the Soviet Union, was almost out of the picture with a death toll of over 26 million. On top of that, Germany had nothing to lose, and would not conceivably stop. So how then, with all odds against them, did the Allies win the war? A combination of factors affected Germany’s downfall, such as lack of morale, unwieldy weapons, and failure to work with its so-called allies.

Few inventions have shaped war as much as the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb enabled massive indiscriminate destruction on a scale the world had never seen. The offensive capabilities of the atomic bomb were terrifying and many believed a nuclear war could destroy the world. Bernard Brodie, Albert Wohlstetter, Thomas Schelling, and André Beaufre describe the state of war the atomic bomb introduced in the Nuclear Age. Their writings show that atomic bombs changed warfare by changing the focus of arms development to avoid conflict and threats against civilians were now used to force surrender.

In this essay I will assess the significance of strategic bombing of Germany. I will do this by evaluating four key areas of the German war effort. This will include German and British moral, German economy, its effect on the outcome of the Eastern Front and the results of the preparation for D-Day. Overall allied bombing did not have a significant impact on the outcome of the war as for the majority of the war bombing techniques and technology were primitive and so had little effect. It only became a threatening tool latter on in the war, when the allies had effectively won.

This investigation assesses to what extent the atomic bomb was necessary to end the Second World War. This investigation will be limited to the years 1939 to 1945, the duration of World War II, to assess the justifications for the bombing. However, this investigation will also examine sources as recent as the 2010s to evaluate the objective necessity of the bombing because it has remained a consistently controversial topic despite the time difference. Additionally, the necessity of the bomb is a matter that is independent from the initial bombing because its effect went beyond just ending the war, and, contextually, it is essential to examine its causes and effects with respect to events both before and after the war. Throughout this investigation, novels, memoirs, and web articles will be analyzed with evaluations of their origins, purpose, values, and limitations.

MP1 One of the Carl Von Clausewitz’s central issues that describes war’s dynamic is the concept of “culminating point of victory.” Clausewitz advocated the idea that an offensive should be focused on the defender’s collapse, otherwise there is a “culminating point”, a momentum where the attacker loses his advantage for strategic victory. As he mentioned, “every attack which does not lead to peace must necessarily end up as a defense.” Military history has been enriched by battles of commanders with an overestimating self-confidence and high spirit who failed to identify this momentum. As a result, they lost the tactical advantage and they were defeated. Classical example in the World War II

The bombing campaigns in Vietnam, Rolling Thunder, Linebacker I, and Linebacker II, still remain controversial today. The common academic threat revolves around that if Rolling Thunder saw a more destructive use of air power, as used during Linebacker I and II, it would have been successful. Mark Clodfelter wholly disagrees with this idea. Throughout his book, Clodfelter believes that Linebacker I and II saw success because they had a different political objective. In the preface, he writes that many Air Force personnel “ignore the essence of why bombing “worked” in 1972 – because it was the proper instrument to apply, given Nixon’s specific goals and the political and military situation that then existed”(p xii). This is further clarified by stating what Richard Nixon’s aim for the bombing campaigns was versus what Lyndon Johnson wanted.

The development of the allied military strategy in World War II (WWII) presented challenges for the U.S. and Great Britain as they worked together to defeat the Axis powers. First, this paper will review the environment at the time of WWII when Admiral Stark penned the “Plan Dog” memorandum and MAJ Wedemeyer’s War Defense Team put together the “Victory Plan”. Next, it will look at the advantages and disadvantages of coalition operations with supporting examples. Then, a review of two major meetings between U.S. and Great Britain will identify what strategic decisions were made and the effects they have on the war. Finally, this paper will explore the foundations of strategy (Clausewitz and Sun Tzu) by which the allied forces used and

Richard Overy’s book “Why the Allies Won” is a great read for those who are intrigued by World War II alternate histories. Overy gives unique insights on the large scaled picture regarding how the war went throughout each of his chapters. The book identifies that the resulting Allied victory was not inevitable, and then it points out the factors that contributed to making the Allied victory possible.

The Battle of Britain, also called “Britain's Finest Hour”, was one of the most influential moments in all of World War II. The powerful Nazis had twice as many planes as the RAF (Royal Air Force), yet the British held them off, and in the end succeeded in gaining the first win against the Luftwaffe (German Air Force). This couldn’t have been accomplished without the brave British pilots, who would do anything to protect their country.

"World War 2 was a war fought in two distinct phases. The first was the last war of a new generation. The second was emphatically the first of a new era" . <br><br>"The British strategic bomber campaign was of doubtful cost effectiveness" . Bomber Command was by far the largest claimant on labour and factory space within the armed forces. Relative to their size they suffered more casualties than any other sector. <br><br>The Anglo-American bomber force was divided in terms of strategy. Bomber Command believed it was too risky to bomb by day, while the Americans believed it was too difficult to bomb by night. Initially both forces lacked accurate navigational equipment, which deterred them from precision bombing. <br><br>Germany developed a

During the Great War bombing was a new idea that was just spawned. The idea of throwing bombes out of planes was the beginning of a new way of warfare. As time advanced bombs were mounted on the bottom of bigger planes with small turret gunners to protect the bomber from enemy planes. During the thirties there was new ideas about ways of using bombers and how it would affect warfare. In Overy it says that many people like H.G. Wells in his book War in the Air shows how terrifying and chaotic bombers can be in war to civilians. Others like the Bomber Command loved the idea of bombing and thought it would be a way to win the war by devastating

National security requirements exercised the most significant influence on the development of airpower in Europe and the United States before the Second World War (WWII), because nations on both sides of the Ocean had to cope with the multifaceted disastrous results of World War I (WWI) and airpower seemed to be the answer for future wars. Primarily, understanding the context and consequences of WWI is vital to apprehend airpower theorist like Douhet, Mitchell and Trenchard and their revolutionary thoughts on airpower. The development of aircraft in the at the beginning of the twentieth century challenged not only military leadership but national security of modern states. The basic question was: How will aerial bombing of enemy territory fit

From the skies over Great Britain, to the skies of Afghanistan, over the skies of Guam, air power has played a major role in everything that involves conflict. Air power has even played a vital role in peacetime as well. For something that is seemed to taken advantaged of today, it was a tough lesson for the pioneers of air power. Their mistakes and smart ideas have given the world today, the ability to do so much on the battle field, which is it almost unfathomable in the human mind. The possibilities are limitless in the skies that is above the heads of so many. The world has seen a lot of turmoil, but the influence of air power is continuously changing as the years go on, but the history is the one who deems what the people will remember.