The Popular View Of 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

President Roosevelt realized that Britain needed aid or else the U.S. would become a lone “free” nation in a fascist-dominated world. The American military needed to be mobilized in order to assist the Allies or democracy would be in grave danger. Roosevelt plead his case to the American people in his famous “Quarantine Speech” in which he called for an end to dangerous isolationism; however, his speech was not well-received and he was criticized for his desire to “entangle” the U.S in European foreign affairs (Document D). With Britain the only remaining power fighting against Germany, Roosevelt felt compelled to offer aid in some way. In 1940, Roosevelt boldly transferred fifty World War I destroyers to Britain in exchange for eight valuable defense bases stretching from Newfoundland to South America. As bombs dropped over Britain, Americans began to realize that their interests were intricately tied to Britain’s and that they must offer aid or else the battle would come to American soil soon. The goals of American foreign policy were reversed when Congress repealed the now defunct Neutrality Acts and officially ended their Neutrality. The U.S. began openly selling weapons to Britain on a “cash-and-carry” basis so as to avoid attacks on American ships. When this was not enough, Roosevelt devised the

The United States President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and British Prime Minister, Winston S. Churchill, met aboard naval ships in Placentia Bay to discuss major issues relating to the damages caused by the ongoing World War II. At this point, the U.S. remained neutral in the war during this time, but was actively lending support to the allied powers. The Atlantic Charter resulted from the meetings was issued on August 14, 1941. The document, which was not a treaty, stated that the two leaders “deem it right to make known certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopes for a better future for the world.” The document lists off eight

Yet, it would be inconceivable that Britain, America’s greatest ally in Western Europe, would not receive aid, especially off the back of the harsh winter of 1946-47. This is because Britain faced an “imminent

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.

During WWII, there were numerous meetings between U.S. and British strategists. Of these meetings, two held significant importance: Quebec Conference and the Tehran Conference. These two meetings contained major military strategic decisions and they made significant impacts on the conduct of the war. It is important to note that throughout all meetings conducted in preparation for and during WWII, military strategy differences existed between the Allied

Allied shipping from North America to Britain needed to supply at least a million tonnes of goods to allow Britain to survive and fight against the Axis . Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of Britain for the duration of the Second World War, called the Battle of the Atlantic “the [most] dominating factor all through the war. Never for one moment could we forget that everything happening elsewhere, on land, at sea or in the air depended ultimately on its outcome” . Therefore, whoever held the upper hand in the Battle of the Atlantic held the advantage in supplies for the war. Germany decided to employ their U-boats to try to delay and strike

World War 2 is easily the largest conflict in terms of, manpower, destruction, and diversity of battlefields in human history. In total nearly one hundred million people served throughout the world in World War 2, and nearly 70 million came from the Allied Powers. This is an impressive amount, and considering that the Axis Powers had only around 42% of the manpower at their disposal it’s impressive how long they managed to forced the war to last. However, the allies troop level isn’t exactly very telling of who contributed the most to defeating the Third Reich, Italy, and the Empire of Japan. Every country in the Allied Powers were integral in defeating The Axis, but from a future perspective certain countries did provide overwhelming support when compared to others in the alliance. In this paper the countries of the United States of America, British Empire, and the Soviet Union will be compared to each other in terms of manpower diverted to war, war material produced over the duration of the war, and supplies harvested to support each other throughout the war. Some countries like the British fought the longest, while others like the USA and USSR joined during 1941, and others like France we defeated early on in the war, and only fighting militarily after they were liberated, and thus won’t be included. This is a hotly debated topic among many historians who debate whether or not the US’s lend-lease act truly held the Soviet Union

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.

Stoler presents three perspectives on the U.S strategy and Franklin D. Roosevelt’s strategic leadership with the allies during the Second World War . The first argument is Hanson Baldwin’s claims of a “political shortsightedness” of the U.S strategy during the war. Baldwin observed that the United States entry into the war only considered the immediate conquest rather than pursuing the objectives of ultimate peace. Additionally, Baldwin asserted that this lack of a clear political objective has been common in the U.S strategy. These sentiments regard the failure of the U.S under Roosevelt to acknowledge that war would be senseless mass murder if it had no elements of politics extension. The opinion presented by Baldwin suggests that in the actual sense, war is a nation’s enforcement of available strength towards a more stable peace. In joining the allies, the U.S only targeted military objectives for victory rather than the realization of political goals through victory. Baldwin also expressed the thoughts that America’s involvement in the war was single-minded, only forging an alliance with the Allies to overcome the enemy. Hence, the U.S entry into the war was more of idealistic than pragmatic, only driven by the desire for conquest without acknowledging the motivations for the war. This argument served to highlight the absence of an assessment of the military and political policy integration as a weakness in Roosevelt’s strategy. Baldwin also discussed the presence of an

The Allied Powers, during World War II, recognized the only way to achieve a decisive victory was to work in conjunction, and utilize one another’s strengths and assets. However, Great Britain and the United States had differing views on the proper strategy. The United States believed concentrating its power at the earliest possible moment to attack an enemy’s critical center of gravity was the appropriate course of action (Greenfield, 1963, p. 25). The United States desired to conduct a cross channel amphibious assault and securing the French coastline from German forces. Great Britain viewed American strategy, operations, and tactics as reckless and inexperienced (Greenfield, 1963, p. 43). Winston Churchill preferred his forces to concentrate their efforts in the Mediterranean and North Africa, through more cautious engagements, to preserve economic stability in the region, while allowing the Russians to fight Germany directly and weaken German resolve. Successful unified operations in the Mediterranean were necessary, prior to conducting the cross channel invasion, in order to provide the Allies with increased strategic advantages, as well as increased faith in the commitment to combined war efforts. First, the United States needed to prove to Britain that its military forces were able to plan and execute disciplined combined operational

During World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union fought together as allies against the Axis powers a group of countries that opposed the Allied powers. The United States and the Soviet Union were the strongest nations. When the war ended in 1945, these two countries become known as the world’s super powers. However, the relationship between the two nations was a tense one. When the war ended, the two super powers had very different ideas and point of views.

In many schools, students are taught about events that happened worldwide which changed history forever. They are taught about tragedies so that people will never repeat the mistakes. One of these horrendous tragedies is World War II and the Holocaust. People across Europe and the surrounding countries were being persecuted and murdered. Today, this event is learned through facts, photographs, and videos. For many, it is hard to deny the evidence. However, it has been theorized that all of this was fabricated by governments and other people who believe what they have been told. This has led to the development of conspiracy theories which thousands of people worldwide believe. Some of these interesting yet crazy ideas include the lies behind the attack on Pearl Harbor, the truth about what happened to Hitler, and even that the Holocaust was a hoax.

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

Since World War II, Britain and the United States have enjoyed extremely close ties in a diversity of areas, forming what has been known as the “special relationship”. This phrase, coined by Winston Churchill, underscores the military, diplomatic and economic cooperation that has existed between them ever since their successful alliance during World War II, the shared cultural and historical identity between Britain and its ex-colony, and on a smaller scale the close personal relationships that existed between some of the leaders of both countries. Despite all this, some critics have seen it as an unequal relationship that has left the UK in a weak position in relation to the more powerful US (Wright 2002). This essay will analyze the pros and cons of the special relationship in three different areas: military intervention, defense, and economy, in order to prove that the special relationship’s benefits have far outweighed the disadvantages and that the relationship has been a positive one for Britain.