WWII: What was the big deal?

[Joli7211]

Oh! (Keep in mind that I'm Canadian...) What about POW camps? I lived near one for many, many years and didn't know it. I don't know if Americans had POW camps on American territory, but it might be interesting to find out what the military did with their POW's...

 

[Decodence]

Oh! (Keep in mind that I'm Canadian...) What about POW camps? I lived near one for many, many years and didn't know it. I don't know if Americans had POW camps on American territory, but it might be interesting to find out what the military did with their POW's...

We had POW camps right here in AZ, and some nazis broke out. Little did they know that the rivers they were planning to use in their escape only have water in them once every decade or so. We also interned US citizens of our enemy's descent because we were scared they might be spys.

Edit: Check this out:
http://home.arcor.de/kriegsgefangene/usa/camps_usa/papago_park.html

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Guadalcanal. The turning point in the pacific theatre of operations.
August 7, 1942, to February 7, 1943

-dixon cannon

 

[Story]

Did anybody mention development of the atomic bomb? This was spurred on
by the race to prevent the Axis powers from attaining the bomb first.

If you're going to teach the developement and use of the Atomic Bombs, teach it in the context of how the Imperial Japanese forces were husbanding men, machines and munitions to defend the home islands - to the detriment of their frontline units.

Had OPERATION DOWNFALL been deemed necessary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall ), Allied casualties would have run into the millions, Japanese (military and civlian) the tens of millions.

 

[Wesne]

I think the most important thing is to get them to think critically and thus bring up things that runs contrary to the "general" American perception of the war.

-The war began in 1939 and was fought for two years before America entered in 1941. In fact, in East Asia, the fighting there began before 1939.

-The war was won on the Eastern Front by our ally, Soviet Russia. Stalingrad is just as important (perhaps more so) than D-Day.

-We didn't liberate Europe from the Nazis. We liberated half of Europe, and then gave the other half to the communists for them to oppress for the next 45 years.

If I had only 3 minutes to try to correct a typical American's misunderstandings of World War II, these would probably be the points I would try to make. Particularly the vast scale of the war on the Eastern Front, and how Hitler's gamble on the invasion of the Soviet Union failed, and that the tide there was turned before the U.S entrance into the war really had any impact.

P.S. - I'd also mention how the stage for World War II was set by the Treaty of Versailles, and how the end of World War II set the stage for the Cold War...

 

[Leutnant]

A very valuable lesson could be gleaned by an examination of the war and its causes from different points of view, not only those of the Allied Powers, but the Axis as well. All too often history is taught as if all things are black and white, rather than many being shades of gray. In addition, an examination of the impact of the world wide depression of the 30's and the relationship of how WW1 and its aftermath (particularly the Versailles Treaty and its setting of the stage for the rise of National Socialism) led to a second world war would be invaluable. After all, to paraphrase, those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

 

[Decodence]

A very valuable lesson could be gleaned by an examination of the war and its causes from different points of view, not only those of the Allied Powers, but the Axis as well. .

Perish the thought of history not being written by the victors.

 

[RondoHatton]

Unfortunate ramifications?

The Holocaust.

 

[Naphtali]

I was curious as to your opinions (as WWII experts) regarding the most important things American teenagers should know about WWII . . .
So, in your opinion, what were the most pivotal moments? The most under-appreciated moments? The most pivotal technologies, innovations and advancements? Unfortunate ramifications?

I'm want to get beyond their textbook if possible (because there aren't enough for all the students to take home anyways). I've already got my own answers to these questions, but I'm curious to see what you all think.

Thanks,
Corto

Among items to investigate are, in no particular order:
1. The conflict destroyed traditional colonialism. Death throes lasted about 15 years after conflict ended.
1-A. There is a strong possibility that US foreign policy 1939-42 was intended to achieve #1 -- that is, arming of the British Empire stripped its liquid assets. This did not occur with aid to the USSR.
1-B. Notice that military and political dominance migrated to USA by 1944.

2. While the war was, for Americans, a conflict against obvious evil -- I use the term specifically -- Americans did not view Germany in the same way as they did Japan. And US government did not view these countries the same way as American public. Government concluded Germany was the main threat and devoted about 80-85 percent of the war effort toward its defeat. There was a significantly more visceral, racially charged antipathy for Japan, but the effort to defeat that country was minor.

3. While all other main participants in the war diverted nearly their entire economies to war production by end of 1943, US diverted less than 40 percent of its economy. This is among the most interesting points to investigate. Why not a maximum effort? What would have constituted "maximum?"

4. Why was there essentially zero co-ordination of military or political policy among the Axis states? For example, had Japan launched an attack on USSR's Far Eastern Army anytime during the period July-December 1941, regardless of its success, USSR would have been defeated. Japan would have won its war with the Soviets even had it been defeated in battle.

5. Why did the ME 109 not incorporate drop tanks during the Battle of Britain? The technology was available; benefit of improved dwell time over Britain was obvious.
5-A. Why did not German radar experts or technicians fail to understand purpose and value of radar towers at the English coast?
5-B. Why did the Nazi government preclude nearly all technology-related research that would not have an operational benefit within four months?

6. Why did Japan not protect its Mitsubishi "Zero" pilots with an armor cocoon as did other countries' aircraft?
6-A. Why was fire control on Japanese surface warships so poor compared with American ships -- that is, Japanese surface vessels suffered uncontrollable fire damage where an American ship would survive.

7. Investigate war policy of Kuomintang government -- war aims, economic policy -- 1932-1945. A strong case can be made for World War II beginning in 1931 (Mukden Incident) or 1937 (Marco Polo Bridge Incident).
7-A. Investigate the corruption of the Japanese (Meiji) Constitution of 1889 at the time of the Marco Polo Bridge Incident. The document was well-conceived, well-written, and worked reasonably well for years -- a blend of the German Constitution of 1872?? and British law. What the heck happened?

8. There was a substantial enhancement of central governmental control in USA, accompanied by changes in civil liberties for all citizens. Identify the changes as best you can. Track them through 1947 to determine trends -- control that was relinquished, maintained, enhanced further, other.

I haven't thought about these things since I quit teaching. . . . You get the idea.

 

[MrBern]

the Phillipines

Its seems like a lot of young students might be aware of PearlHarbor & Dday, but not much in between.

This tragic event should be explained in a classroom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_death_march

And definitely more should be taught on the Soviets losses on the Eastern Front.

 

[RIOT]

Or the Last U.S. Cavalry Charge in History led by Lt. Ramsey

http://www.uscavalry.org/USCA-LastChargePrint.pdf

 

[dhermann1]

If you're really a glutton for punishment, tackle the issue of the A bomb. The fact is, the bomb saved a million casualties (often misquoted as a million dead) among Americans. That would have been 100,000 dead. But it also probaly saved, if the ratios in the previous battles had continued, at least 1 or 2 million Japanese dead (not wounded, dead). There may have been very mixed motives for dropping the bomb, i.e. mainly to get the Russians' attention, but it did save millions of lives.
I wouldn't mess young students heads up with issues of US policies. They are still debatable today. But anyone wanting to pursue the issue will find plenty of grist for the mill. I'm just at the point in Churchill's WW II where those issues are coming to a head. There certainly was some questionable thinking going on in the US, and you can't just blame FDR. We realized our mistake, but not soon enough to prevent the USSR from swallowing up half of Europe.
If you look at Africa today, you could argue that the aftermath of WW II is still going on. That's history for you.
But if you can just get kids to realize that the war even happened, who was fighting who, and that it remains by far the biggest event in the history of the human race, you'll have accomplished a lot.

 

[RIOT]

Here is an interesting beach landings fact.



LEYTE Landings
Oct 20 to Dec. 31, 1944 * 2 months and 1 week campaign

US Strength:

6th Army = 202,500 ground troops + 3,189 Filipino Guerrillas

858 ships (157 warships & 701 Aux ships)

US Casualties:

KIA - 3,504

WIA - 12,080


Japanese Casualties:

KIA - 49,000




IWO JIMA Landings
Feb. 19 to March 26, 1945 * 36 Days battle

US Strength:

110,000 marines

880 ships

US Casualties:

KIA - 6,821

WIA - 19,189

MIA - 494


Japanese Casualties:

KIA - 20,703

Captured - 216




NORMANDY Landings
June 6 to Aug. 21, 1944

Combined Allied Strength American, British, Canadian, Free French - 156,000

73,000 US ( 15,500 were airborne )

83,115 allied troops ( 61,715 of them British )

8 different navies, comprising 6,939 vessels:

1,213 warships, 4,126 transport vessels



.

 

[Smithy]

5. Why did the ME 109 not incorporate drop tanks during the Battle of Britain? The technology was available; benefit of improved dwell time over Britain was obvious.
5-A. Why did not German radar experts or technicians fail to understand purpose and value of radar towers at the English coast?

Hope you don't mind my piping up about these but the Battle of Britain is my special interest and big passion...

5. Why did the ME 109 not incorporate drop tanks during the Battle of Britain? The technology was available; benefit of improved dwell time over Britain was obvious.

Sorry but this is incorrect. The ability of the Me109 to carry drop tanks did not happen until the arrival of the Me109E-7 which began to be introduced to the Jagdgeschwadern at the very end of August 1940. Although drop tanks had been manufactured just before the autumn of 1940, the moulded plywood tanks initially leaked incredibly badly and because of this drop tanks did not appear on Me109s until after the Battle of Britain, and more importantly, after the decisive months of August and September.

5-A. Why did not German radar experts or technicians fail to understand purpose and value of radar towers at the English coast?

Simple. Poor intelligence. As late as Göring's 6th August meeting with his commanders of Luftflotten 2, 3, and 5 for the final planning of Adlertag, they still had no idea of the purpose of the Chain Home and Chain Home Low structures dotted along the southern and eastern coasts of England.

 

[NoirDame]

I didn't see anyone mention this...

...and I realise it is a history class, but there are some social and economic changes that led to various civil rights movements in the upcoming decades.

I'm referring to both African-Americans and women. Merely looking at the increase of American women entering the workforce during the war shows that it radically changed the social norm. It's been said that many of the posters of the "American homemaker" or American home life were as much to reassure concerned citizens that while we we all pitching in, the role as homemaker was still top priority (paraphrasing from Eating for Victory: Food Rationing and the Politics of Domesticity by Amy Bentley) as advertisting war effort work. Further, for the first time African-American women were leaving domestic positions in record numbers (about 1/2) for higher-paying and more dignified war work (20% did not return to domestic work after the war). The entrance of women into non-traditional roles paved the way for woman in the workplace and women's rights movements in the 60s. Also, the social climate and changes of wartime played a role in African-American civil rights later on. It's a big topic and I'm just touching on it. If any info is wrong, please go ahead and point it out. I'm operating on half a brain at the moment. All of my stats are from Eating for Victory and I should mention in all fairness that I have not cross-referenced them for the purposes of this post.

Aside from that, there IS a lot of history to touch on with women on the homefront. I'm writing my thesis on women and their contributions during WW2. A male veteran I spoke to told me "The women won the war, you know."


I know you have a LOT to cover in a little amount of time, but women's history is too often swept aside. Hopefully, you have time to share a little of it.

 

[Corto]

I'm working on some individual responses, but I just wanted to tell everyone THANK YOU.

You've recommended some brilliant stuff- some of which I've forgotten or hadn't thought of.

This has been a big help to me, so just know I appreciate it.

 

[dhermann1]

re: "Women won the war"

My parents met while in the Marine Corps. They worked on the Leatherneck Magazine. My mother always quoted General Vandergrift that women fielded the 6th Marine Divison by taking jobs in the service that would have otherwise required a man. However I think you'd have to say that "women won the war" was a slight exaggeration. But their productivity was one of the decisive factors.
You could even make the argument that our enemies lost the war for themselves, first by starting a war they could never win in the first place, and second by making huge and fundamental blunders in its prosecution. But that's a topic for another well lubricated all nighter.

 

[cooncatbob]

The root causes of the European war go back at least to the 1840s.
The unresolved issues of WW1 directly lead to the rise of the Nazis and WW2 and those unresolved issues are still being felt to this day. The Balkans, the Middle East, if you read the history of these regions you'll see that very little has changed.
Bob.

 

[Wesne]

Here's another topic that would be a good assignment for a term paper - compare and contrast the following:
1. The WWI victors' treatment of the defeated nations via the Treaty of Versailles (reparations and humiliation)
2. The Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe and the U.S. occupation of Japan under MacArthur. (economic aid, democratization)
3. The Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. (an attitude of "to the victor go the spoils," empire building and oppression)

 

[Mike K.]

I just spoke with two "well-educated" college students today. Neither of them knew of Robert E. Lee, Winston Churchill, or several other prominent figures in U.S. & World history. One even commented that she never knew that Virginia and West Virginia were two separate States. The Alamo...what is that? Pearl Harbor is located where? We fought in Korea? After hearing this and what Alan had to say earlier, I seriously wonder what today's youth are learning (if anything). At least give 'em the basics so people know who's who, what happened, etc. and won't turn out to be dummies. Most of all, you have to capture the attention of the class and get them interested/engaged, otherwise you'll just be trying to fill empty heads with lots of facts that will never stick.