WWII: What was the big deal?

[Alan Eardley]

I don't see anything in the 'Himmelbett' system that the Germans developed with Telefunken to control night fighter operations that indicates that it was'nt more advanced than the control systems used by Fighter Command(which were, admittedly, developed somewhat earlier).

I think that by most measures the use of the double Wurzburg units with simulator projections (red lights for enemy 'blips' and blue for friendly) on the underside of a two level glass Seeburg table was much more sophisticated (and probably more effective in operation) than the wooden tables, models and plotters used in England.

Just my opinion, of course.

Alan

 

[carebear]

I don't see anything in the 'Himmelbett' system that the Germans developed with Telefunken to control night fighter operations that indicates that it was'nt more advanced than the control systems used by Fighter Command(which were, admittedly, developed somewhat earlier).

I think that by most measures the use of the double Wurzburg units with simulator projections (red lights for enemy 'blips' and blue for friendly) on the underside of a two level glass Seeburg table was much more sophisticated (and probably more effective in operation) than the wooden tables, models and plotters used in England.

Just my opinion, of course.

Alan

That's equipment.

Were they able to use it to more efficiently utilize their air assets than the British did?

That would be doctrine.

Sound doctrine can usually compensate for equipment, the reverse is seldom as true.

 

[Alan Eardley]

That's equipment.

Were they able to use it to more efficiently utilize their air assets than the British did?

That would be doctrine.

Sound doctrine can usually compensate for equipment, the reverse is seldom as true.

It was a system - the way the equipment is used by people.

Some of the British equipment was probably better, but I still have to be convinced that the way Kammhuber organised and directed the German air defences against night bombing (based on 'Himmelbett') was in any way inferior to the British system.

IMO the difference was in the method of attack - not defence. The USAAF and RAF day/night strategic bombing offensive was much more effective and more difficult to defend against than the effort the Luftwaffe was able to raise after 1941. The RAF losses to night fighters show how effective the 'Himmelbett' system could be. The performance of RAF night fighters - of which much was made at the time - was not so good (although it could be argued that they had fewer and more dispersed targets, of course).

Alan

 

[Smithy]

I don't see anything in the 'Himmelbett' system that the Germans developed with Telefunken to control night fighter operations that indicates that it was'nt more advanced than the control systems used by Fighter Command(which were, admittedly, developed somewhat earlier).

I perhaps should have been more specific Alan. At the time of the Battle of Britain, the RAF's RDF and the Luftwaffe's Freya systems were technologically at a very similar level (the CH even had a slightly longer range). As I think we all agree the difference was in how the data being received was utilised.

However after the Battle and in the years when the air war shifted over occupied Europe and into Germany, the Luftwaffe systems became highly sophisticated. It is also interesting to see that the Luftwaffe implemented many of the similar techniques with which they were met during the Battle, into their defence of the Reich. Many former Battle of Britain pilots who found themselves on escort duties over Europe expressed this, Al Deere and Johnnie Johnson being two who have even written about this.

 

[Corto]

It actually makes me want to do some more research on my own!!

I wish I had a teacher like you... I would have actually gone to school instead of cutting class!

Well done

Thanks for the compliment. I wish my students felt the same way!

 

[Corto]

I think those are excellent topics and will give you a lot of variety grading them!

Thank you!
Of course, many of them were driven by our state standards...

 

[Corto]

Any submarine experts out there? I'm about to teach my class about Wolf-Packs (I need to give them a break from foreign policy and "diplomacy".

Let's see if I've got this straight:

Diesel subs were the standard and could only stay submerged for about 24 hours before the crews died of carbon monoxide poisoning. Right?

Also...the efficacy of the Wolfpack was limited because of in order to contact other U-boats, they'd have to stay surfaced for an uncomfortably long period of time to send and receive radio traffic.

Is the bottom line that the German Wolf-Packs only worked because they utilized radio and combined sea and air assets for a brief period of time until the Allies caught up with countermeasures? Or were the Wolf-Packs still useful and effective until the end of the war?

 

[Naphtali]

The problem is the day-to-day teaching. There aren't enough textbooks to send home with my students at night (I'm about 35 books shy)...so I'm faced with the problem of having to basically tell them everything they would be reading from their books every night - which doesn't leave any time for discussion or debate. Even though the kids know this, it doesn't help focus their attention during a lecture.

You just can't conduct an engaging activity without grist for the mill.

That's why the good lord created photocopiers, to free your time. . . .which brings you back to what do you photocopy . . . which is apparently for what you created this query.

My first teaching job was at Kansas City (MO) Central High School where I experienced a comparable dearth of materials. I made several raids on the photocopier. The administration was furious, my students delighted. They became aware of new, different ideas, and incredibly, enjoyed savoring them.

 

[Alan Eardley]

I suggest they might be made aware of the role of code-breaking in intercepting ship-to-shore communications between U-boats and their bases.

The students may have seen the (very) fictional film U-571. You could set them the task of finding out how the allies really came to acquire the first Enigma machine, how the code was broken and the desperate and vital race to stay ahead between the KM cryptographers and the allied code-breakers.

At stake was the Battle of the Atlantic, which in the opinion of some historians was the most crucial conflict in the whole of WW2.

Just a suggestion

Alan

Any submarine experts out there? I'm about to teach my class about Wolf-Packs (I need to give them a break from foreign policy and "diplomacy".

Let's see if I've got this straight:

Diesel subs were the standard and could only stay submerged for about 24 hours before the crews died of carbon monoxide poisoning. Right?

Also...the efficacy of the Wolfpack was limited because of in order to contact other U-boats, they'd have to stay surfaced for an uncomfortably long period of time to send and receive radio traffic.

Is the bottom line that the German Wolf-Packs only worked because they utilized radio and combined sea and air assets for a brief period of time until the Allies caught up with countermeasures? Or were the Wolf-Packs still useful and effective until the end of the war?

 

[Corto]

That's why the good lord created photocopiers, to free your time. . . .which brings you back to what do you photocopy . . . which is apparently for what you created this query.

I have been providing them with first person accounts and primary documents to spark discussions- it's just that the nuts and bolts stuff in the textbook is so voluminous and they need it to help build a context.

(I also don't want to spend an hour or more hogging the photocopy machine while I xerox whole chapters from the textbook- I thought about it, and I'd probably never get away with it...but it might signal the administration that there's a materials issue.)

I actually started the thread because the people on this site have an intellectual depth about the era, and I wanted to make sure I was covering my bases with the big picture stuff.

I have incorporated some suggestions- namely those recommending I make the students cognizant of what was happening before the US entered the war. So far, that's been the biggest part of the unit.

 

[Corto]

I suggest they might be made aware of the role of code-breaking in intercepting ship-to-shore communications between U-boats and their bases.

The students may have seen the (very) fictional film U-571. You could set them the task of finding out how the allies really came to acquire the first Enigma machine, how the code was broken and the desperate and vital race to stay ahead between the KM cryptographers and the allied code-breakers.

At stake was the Battle of the Atlantic, which in the opinion of some historians was the most crucial conflict in the whole of WW2.

That's a good suggestion.
I need something to throw at the kids after days of talking about the rise of fascist totalitarian nationalism in Europe and US foreign policy.

I'm not sure if the kids saw the movie- but it's a great episode to include- their textbook doesn't even include anything about Enigma- and very little on the Battle of the Atlantic...

I might show them clips from Das Boot...too bad there's not a more recent naval movie other than U-571...

 

[Forgotten Man]

Coming late in the game…

Now, this may have been mentioned already, (I don’t know because I haven’t taken the time to read the whole thread) but, I know most kids to be visual and if they see any original film, or photos, it may bring it closer to home.

I would go to this site:

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/fsachtml/fsowhome.html

On this site you can find some amazing original color photos from the war… mostly all home front images but, that side of the war is very important to me… because it was the home front that helped our guys do their job “OVER THERE”.

To see crisp color original photos will blow their minds! It will make it seem not so long ago… I know it has that effect on me and maybe most of us here.

Good luck!

 

[Edward]

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...

Definitely. I think an important point in understanding the rise of Hitler is to show how he was in the right place at the right time, and how well he exploited an existing situation. Hitler wasn't so much the cause of the war, as the spark that set it alight. A lot of other factos fuelled it, not least German resentment at the Versailles settlement, dubbed a "diktat" as it was in no way a negotiated treaty. The French in particular, it seems to me, were primarily motivated by the desire to see Germany humiliated in 1919, burdened with extreme reparations debts and granted a token army which wasn't even sufficient to defend Germany in the event of an attack. Surely an entirely understandable reaction to what France had suffered, however, it did lead to a situation Hitler could exploit.

It would be interesting also to consider why the Weimar Republic failed. The democracy thrust upon Germany following defeat in the Great War was not something people were used to. It seems to have worked well enough in times of prosperity, but when things turned bad again into the 30s, people (as people always will) plumped for a charismatic, strong leader - something familiar.

In terms of the conduct of the war, I should think the key turning points should be considered, including Hitler's mistakes - had Hitler carried on the Battle of Britain for another week, would he have won it? Why did he open up war on a second front, making the same mistake as Napoleon all over again? A few myths could do with exploding, most particularly Hollywood's tendency to overstate the contribution of the US to the extent that the war begain in 1941, the US won the war and everyone in england would be speaking German today if not for the brave GIs. America made a huge contribution, yes, but it really shocks me at times just how many people actually believe that the US won the war in Europe, captured the enigma machine, etc etc....

I should think also it would be worth comparing and contrasting treatment of identified "enemy" groups by both sides. Obviously, there were the horrors of the Nazi death camps. I would find it important there to emphasise just how many groups were shipped off to the camps. By far the biggest group were Jewish, but there were also gypsies, homosexuals, the disabled, the old and infirm, Christians who refused to toe the Reichskirche line, intellectuals / potential subversives.... and on and on. I think that too often people are only aware of the Jewish victims, and it is important to remember the others too, the sheer scale of the horror. On the Allied side, things like Allied treatment of German POWs should be looked at, also the US internment camps for Japanese Americans and so on. The irony of black US soldiers fighting Hitler in segregated units.... I think it important that all the things the allies did which may not have been as nice as we'd like should be considered. Not that I would hold these up on the same scale as Hitler, BUT I've never had time for sweeping the victors' less noble deeds under the carpet because they were relatively less extreme than Hitler's. Maybe you could compare Dresden to the London Blitz. Propaganda on both sides would be interesting - how did Hitler sell people the segregation of the Jews? The fact that Hitler didn't invent but rather exploited an already existing anti-semitism. It might be interesting (though a bit complex to do in depth for young students) to think about allied propaganda also: how far was any mistreatment of German POWs the result of the dehumanisation of the enemy that is an essential part of the psychological preparation for any armed conflict?

The Home Front in several places would be interesting to compare and contrast: Germany vs England; the US vs England - how different were things in the US for the average person than in England, more directly in the firing line, as it were? Did that contribute differently to levels of support for the war, or otherwise impact on people's lives? What about in occupied France, and the Channel Islands?

I'd also think about ending the war. It seems to me that this time around there was more focus on rebuilding Europe rather than the punitive attitudes of 1919. How was Germany viewed? Maybe something in general about the difference between a Nazi and a German?

Just some ideas... i think it's an endlessly fascinating subject, albeit a very dark time in human existence. (FWIW, I do find the 1914-18 conflict even more depressing - as said above, it does seem just that bit more senseless in a way.).

 

[Corto]

To see crisp color original photos will blow their minds! It will make it seem not so long ago… I know it has that effect on me and maybe most of us here.

Good luck!

I've actually shown them some photos from that collection. It didn't have the mindblowing effect on them as it had on you and I. I tried to explain to them that when I was growing up virtually all publicly available WWII footage was in b&w, and that these photos are just stunning...but...they couldn't process the reason why they should be impressed.

I think the most disturbing moment I had was when I was showing them photos from the "Rape of Nanking", and a couple of students said, "So what?"

 

[Corto]

Just some ideas... i think it's an endlessly fascinating subject, albeit a very dark time in human existence. (FWIW, I do find the 1914-18 conflict even more depressing - as said above, it does seem just that bit more senseless in a way.).

Those were all very penetrating and engaging questions. I'm going to work in as many as I can.

I wish I had the time to show them movies and TV shows that really portray the differences between the British and American homefronts.

My students have very little idea what it's like to make personal sacrifices, though given the pervasive violence in their community, they might understand living in constant fear of "attack".

 

[dhermann1]

I hope you include something about the Red Ball Express, the battalion of African American truck drivers on the European front. They were real heroes. And of course the Tuskegee Airmen.
If you want to show them a movie that really shows the profound viciousness of Naziism, try "Swing Kids".

 

[Corto]

I hope you include something about the Red Ball Express, the battalion of African American truck drivers on the European front. They were real heroes. And of course the Tuskegee Airmen.
If you want to show them a movie that really shows the profound viciousness of Naziism, try "Swing Kids".

The federally mandated Ohio state standards for social studies make sure they get a lot of the African-American contribution. (Which I would've included anyways, given that my classes are about 80-90% African American.)

Thanks for the tip on Swing Kids. I never saw it, but I'm going to check it out.

 

[52Styleline]

These kids need to know that the combat soldiers of WWII weren't all that much older than they are now. That most had never been far from home before and that after a questionable preparation in basic training, they were thrown into the meat grinder.

The early units went overseas together and had a bit of knowledge of each other.. the combat replacements were treated horribly, stuck in replacement depots where they knew nobody, and then sent directly to the front line. If they were lucky, they lived long enough for an NCO to show them how to stay alive....many didn't.

Ask them how well they think they would deal with being pulled out of their current situation, sent through basic, and sent overseas to kill or be killed. All in a matter of weeks. All this with no say in what was happening to them. How would they respond to being shot at and having to kill someone else? War isn't a video game.

 

[Corto]

Ask them how well they think they would deal with being pulled out of their current situation, sent through basic, and sent overseas to kill or be killed. All in a matter of weeks. All this with no say in what was happening to them. How would they respond to being shot at and having to kill someone else? War isn't a video game.

I gave them an assignment at the (relative) beginning of the unit, that they had to start keeping a "journal" pretending they were 16 in 1939. They have to stay within their racial and socioeconomic identities and write about how they react to events as they happen throughout the unit.

I will soon be assigning the girls to industrial jobs (or allowing them to volunteer for military service) and drafting the boys...unless they want to volunteer for the Marines...

We'll see how it goes. I might have them continue to do this throughout the Cold War and make them 16 again in 1966...

 

[Corto]

War isn't a video game.

That's actually a big problem for my students (at least) to understand...I'm planning on spending a class discussing that.