International Conference On World War II

On June 6th 1944, the U.S. and allied forces executed an amphibious assault named Operation Neptune, commonly known as D-Day, along the north-western coastline region of France. The operation covered in this paper will discuss a key battle during the Invasion of Normandy. The Invasion of Normandy was a successful operation focused towards German-occupied Western Europe during World War II. This paper will also cover a brief history and key points of The Battle of Omaha Beach. Critical reasoning and battle analysis will be expressed through what intelligence assets were applied, utilized and available during the time era. The analysis outcome will lead to an expressed alternative ending on The Battle of Omaha Beach. A detailed explanation of how intelligence assets could have been used to change the course of the battle will defend the explained alternative ending discussed. The main points of discussion will include Adolf Hitler’s decision to move most of his tank divisions and infantry units 150 miles north to Calais, the significance of the highly effective group known as the French Resistance and a famous illusionist Jasper Maskelyne.

To consider the inevitability of allied victory in Europe during World War Two requires a more in depth analysis of Germany’s position rather than just looking at the pure ability for the allies to produce war materials and incalculable streams of soldiers. Ultimately ‘quantity of men and arms tells us little about quality’. Obviously Allied victory was final and decisive but this essay will argue that even though this war was won on economic power it did not mean that victory for the nations that were to be industrial superpowers was inevitable. However Allied victory eventually did become inevitable after certain turning points in the war, this essay will demonstrate how the two most important turning points, the Battle for Stalingrad

The United States entered World War Two in late 1941, and right away they were thrown into a conflict that involved making important decisions that would affect generations of people, in the United States and elsewhere, for years to come. A most notable decision by the Allies, namely the United States and Great Britain, was the combining of the American and British military chiefs of staff. This joint collaboration was appropriately titled the “Combined Chiefs of Staff”. They worked together as one body, and made war planning decisions and strategized together. This type of alliance was an innovation in war planning for the time, and the decisions made collaboratively by the two powers contributed greatly to the Allied victory in 1945. The relationships involved and the disputes that came up are worth noting, specifically the question of the Allies opening up a second front in the west, particularly titled “Operation Sledgehammer”. The relationship between President Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, as well as General George Marshall of the United States and General Sir Alan Brooke of Great Britain were the main actors involved in this undertaking, and they will be the main individuals discussed and analyzed for the purposes of this paper. Ultimately Operation Sledgehammer was delayed and no action was taken upon it. Even though it caused rifts between the USSR, for reasons that will be explained, and the Allies far into the future, in retrospect they may have been

I believe that World War II was a continuation of World War I because of some not resolved issues. Hitler violated the Treaty of Versailles by expanding the military and invading Poland. One of the events that led to the beginning of World War 1 was: Militarism, Alliances, Imperialism, and Nationalism; which stands for MAIN. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia but they then joined up with Russia. After, Germany declared war on Russia which caused the war to expand. World War I ended in 1918 when Germany surrendered. It also had a great impact on European countries after it ended.

Allied victory in 1945 was not always inevitable. Richard Overy comments in Why the Allies Won that ‘no rational man in early 1942 would have guessed at the eventual outcome of the war’ . The key aspect for the Allies in winning the war was the defeat of Hitler’s Germany. Despite evidence suggesting allied victory was achieved through military might alone, this essay will argue that victory in 1945 was down to a multitude of factors and cannot be solely attributed to the use of military. Therefore, other important influences with changed a possible German victory into an inevitable Allied victory which will be discussed include the entry of the USA into the war with its huge population and industrial capacity. In addition, the failure of

Did the weapons of WWII have an impact on the world? Yes, they did. Without them, the Allies wouldn’t have won the war. Americans wouldn’t have defeated Japan without the atomic bomb. America wouldn’t have defeated the Nazis either without the planes of WWII.

In the years since 1945, it has become increasingly evident that the alliance between the British and the United States was often in disagreement over the correct strategy to insure the final defeat of the Axis powers. Early on, both British and American staffs could agree that Germany represented a greater military threat than Japan, but they did not often see eye to eye on the strategy that would most efficiently defeat them.

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

After World War I, many Americans feared the idea that communism would spread, they called this concern “The Red Scare”. Americans were wary of the spreading of communism after the Russian Revolution, in their paranoia America attempted to block new incomers, especially eastern and southern Europeans. In addition to The Red Scare, there were limited jobs in America, because of this generations of workers whose families had immigrated before the 1900s, began to view new incomers as a threat because they would work for lower pay and further reduce the jobs available for the nativists . Due to these concerns, immigration regulations went into effect. For instance,

An Overview In the years since 1945, it has become increasingly evident that the Grand Alliance forged between the British Commonwealth and the United States was often beset with disagreement over the correct strategy to insure the final defeat of the Axis powers. Early on, both British and American staffs could agree that Germany represented a greater military threat than Japan, but they did not often see eye to eye on the strategy that would most efficiently defeat the Reich.

During the early stages of World War II (1939-1945), the Japanese Empire attacked the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor; this atrocity that the Japanese committed caused an increase in distrust and resentment towards the Japanese who lived within the United States. Such agitation leads to the creation of internment camps where the United States government placed individuals of Japanese descent for the remainder of the war as a preemptive method to isolate and contain the Japanese—limiting the possibility of another attack on American soil. Through these internment camps, the United States government was able to question and determine the loyalty of the Japanese as a method of identifying non-loyalist amongst the internment camp

The book Eisenhower’s Armies focuses on the interactions between the British and American armies during World War II. Its purpose is to show the incredible amount of tension that existed between the two armies and that despite threatening to tear the alliance apart on several occasions they were able to maintain a working relationship and win the war. However, the book isn’t just about World War II, it also contains the history of relations between the two armies from the French and Indian War to the First World War. It also contains how the members of the two armies viewed each other and what they learned from each other. While the book is interesting to read and is very informative it contains several historical errors.

From a fiercely brave General, who strictly enforces customs, bravery, formalities, and success; to a General with a lighthearted-mood, down to earth attitude, a steadfast courage, and a integrity and decency to lead the nations of the world into battle; while both these legendary Generals fought on the same side, both General S. Patton and General D. Eisenhower were distinctly different Generals. This paper seeks to outline the differences and similarities between the two Generals by taking a close look at their lives, and the impacts they had on WWII.

First, analyze General Eisenhower’s actions at the Battle of Bulge but with President Eisenhower’s assessment criteria. General Eisenhower displayed great cognitive ability when assessing the increasingly complex situation that was developing in the area around the Ardennes. Additionally, General Eisenhower demonstrated the remainder of Greenstein’s leadership traits in excellent fashion upon his establishment and implementation of a solution. General Eisenhower had a clear goal in mind, the safety of the forces he was responsible for, which he strove forward to accomplish. He employed a solution, placing most of General Bradley’s Army Group under Field Marshal Montgomery's command, that best utilized the subordinates that he had available to him to their maximum potential which demonstrated his organization capacity. When dealing with the change of command, General Eisenhower was able to use political skill by appealing to those he had the least influence over, the United Kingdom and Field Marshal Montgomery, instead of insulting them by bypassing their influence. At the same time, he did not let his emotions for his friend, General Bradley, get in the way of making the right strategic choice. He was able to control these emotions, displaying emotional intelligence. Finally, General Eisenhower briefed his plan to his subordinates clearly, so that there was no room for doubt, and stood by his decision despite opposition from his subordinates, thus displaying his public (his subordinates being the public in this scenario) communication

Leading into the Fall of 1914, tactics on both sides of the line involved the rapid mobilization, maneuver and envelopment of the opposing side.10 Pre-1914 doctrine took little into account the effects of emerging new technology and their impact on both defensive and offensive operations. This disconnect between doctrine and technology contributed to the failure of early offensive operations in the Fall of 1914 and resulted in staggering casualties.11 Both sides developed doctrine that took into effect the unique terrain and technology that had been developed prior and during World War I. However by the end of the war, a combination of flexibility, decentralized control, and counterattack at every echelon made the German defensive system the most effective.12 This “elastic defense” had three unique characteristics; dedicated counter-attack force at all levels, decentralized command and control, fluid defensive belts and integrated artillery support at the Division level. Under this new doctrine, Corps headquarters had the role sustaining subordinate units, but not directing their actions during battle.13 This defense-in-depth and the lessons learned during the Verdun battles of 1918 were so successful that British forces adopted many of the German tactics with a special emphasis on their counterattack capability.10 Utilizing the new doctrine, by August 1918, Germany had made substantial gains, however had