The Development Of The Allied Military Strategy During World War II

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

World War II, the second time of the world war, lasted from September 1th, 1939 to September 2th 1945. There were two difference alliances in the WWII, the Axis and Anti-fascist Alliance. The winner of the WWII was Allies, and there are many reasons that can explain why Allies can win it. The most important reason is that Allies gained most support from the public and citizens because Allies represented the justice side. However, there is also a crucial factor that helps the Allies to win the WWII which is the new invention and technology. Inventors made new weapons such as tanks, proximity fuses and atom bomb. The impacts of these weapons were positive to Allies in WWII and those new inventions make a big step of human progress.

The tactics used in World War II had to come from somewhere and that was the past. The main reason for this was because most high ranking officers only knew old tactics. One of the biggest strategies that most are familiar with is the use of trench warfare. The many problems both sides faced when using trenches was how vulnerable soldiers were inside them. They were prone to constant chemical attacks, artillery barrages, and tanks. Trench warfare was not a pretty fight but it was one of the most used tactics throughout the war. An offensive at Somme was a prime example of the use and tactical advantage tools of war gave a side. In the summer of 1916, General Douglas Haig ad ordered and eight day artillery bombardment to soften up the German

Ever since the beginning of time, there has been conflict and conflict will always play a role in the development of history. The world has experienced hundreds of wars with countless casualties, these wars date back to the 10th Century and forward to the present. The United States of America is no stranger to war having participated in over 100 wars either it being a small war or a world war. Michael C. C. Adams “The Best War Ever” gives a rational explanation on the events that led the U.S to become the powerhouse country after sacrificing so much for the war, or did they? In this paper we will support the argument made in Adams “The Best War Ever” Chapter four, appropriately titled “The American War Machine”, other primary sources used will be such as Harry S. Truman first speech to congress in April 1945 and General George S. Patton’s praise speech to the Third Army. The argument being that the U.S did in fact play an impacting role in the outcome of World War 2 but how it also used appearances as an advantage to further develop itself as an international force, just like the tale from the Trojan War, the Trojan horse was all about appearances but with a precise objective.

Wars throughout history ended in one of two ways: One side wins while the other side loses, or both sides reach a stalemate; The Battle of Bolton Park resulted in a stalemate after two armies fought against each other. There was a question that still remained, even after the war ended, which side caused the stalemate? This paper will review each army’s profile, tactical plans, post-war events, and the fights within the battle itself and revealing what caused the stalemate at The Battle of Bolton Park.

The commanders of the Axis powers signed their surrender treaties as thirsty men. If a lack of petrol did not lose them the war, it certainly shortened if for them. As the Second World War was the first to incorporate planes, tanks and diesel powered warships on such a large scale, it is not surprising that oil was of massive importance. However, this essay will show that for the Axis powers, oil was not only a logistical necessity. But also a decisive factor in declarations of war, strategic decision making, objectives of campaigns as well as battlefield tactics. For readability, I will discuss

The British has welcomed the American entrance into the European front. Along with troops, the United States was backed by the american war machine, what almost seemed like an endless supply of industry, manufacturing, and the capital for both. This represented the power shift to the other side of the Atlantic. Britain’s financial resources were in a desperate situation, and their unquestionable international supremacy was going along with it. Going into the end of 1941, XXX reflected on this shift on the horizon. “‘Our War’ had become the world war, in which we were a tremendously important unit, but no longer in control of the decisions.”

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.

The purpose of this paper will be the battle analysis and evaluation of Operation Fortitude (code name for deception plan to invade France) in support of Operation Overlord (code name for the Battle of Normandy and invasion of German occupied France). The analysis and evaluation will be done using the intellectual standards and the elements of reasoning to provide an alternate outcome for Operation Overlord. An alternate outcome will be suggested based on the use of deception that results in the defeat of the Allies (United States, Canada and Great Britain) at Normandy.

In the European theater of World War II, 1942 marked the dominance of the Axis powers. German forces in the Soviet Union had reached Stalingrad and threatened the oil fields of the Caucasus; Axis forces in Africa seemed on the verge of pushing the British out of Egypt; and German U-boat wolf packs preyed on Allied shipping with relative impunity [1]. Late in 1942, however, two significant Allied successes served to turn the tide against the Axis powers. At El Alamein, a British offensive defeated General Erwin Rommel’s Afrika Korps, while almost simultaneously a huge Anglo-American force landed in North Africa to contest Axis control; Operation Torch. The operation marked the first time that British and American forces worked together on

This book consisted of five large chapters. Each chapter was about a small group of people who played a significant role in the victory of World War 2. The names of the chapters are: How To Get Convoys Safely Across The Atlantic, How To Win Command Of The Air, How To Stop A Blitzkrieg, How To Seize An Enemy-Held Shore, and How To Defeat The “Tyranny Of Distance.” Most of the events that are described in this book occurred between the Casablanca Conference of January 1943 and July 1944.

Churchill helped lead a successful allied strategy with the USA and the Soviet Union to defeat

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

The conflict between the Allies and the Axis was a horrific and deadly one, which consisted of genocide and mass bombings. Innocent citizens were killed with the estimated sixty million casualties, which lead to the question as to the morality of the different actors—Germany, Japan, England and America— in WWII. In order to truly assess their guilt, meaning their moral innocence, each country will be measured upon the morality of their intent and execution of the different controversial mass killings that Germany (the Holocaust), Japan (Nanking), and the Allied forces (Dresden and Hiroshima) took part in. This hierarchy of evil can be judged upon how Japan’s tyranny and the Allies’ area bombing compare to the genocide performed by Germany. Similarly, these countries will be judged on the whether these different acts were premeditated versus in response to another act, as well as the proportionality to which these acts were carried out. This measurement of evil places each party on an overall scale, which depicts the total guilt that each country or countries deserve. WWII exemplifies that while war is an unavoidable aspect of human nature, there is no such thing as a just war. Similarly, while there is a definite hierarchy of morality between the different actors of WWII, each of the countries at play are immoral in their intent and execution of the attacks on opposing countries.

Because Hitler’s vision did not translate into an effective strategic plan, with clear strategic objectives a disconnect between what Germany wanted to achieve (ends), the way it wanted to achieve it (ways), and the resources it would choose to utilize (means) was created. As such, it is this disconnection that also played a large role in Germany’s failure to translate its tactical and operational victories into strategic success and overall victory. Examples of this disconnect and the calamitous effects are clearly present in a quick analysis of the Battle of Britain.