HEY

If anyone gets this: I am not sure which conference the Napkin Agreement took place. If you could clarify that would be great!! Thanks!!!

Presentations

Buchenwald was a mean's concentration camp in 1937, and women were put there in '43 or '44.  They had barbed wire fences and the prisoners were confined to the north part of the complex.  Other parts were reserved for the riding academy, zoo and headquarters for the guards.  The Commandant's name was Koch.  The camp itself was located near the city but was in a forested area.  Prisoners were made to build roads as means for transport.  There were political prisoners, Jews, Gypsies, German army deserters, and officials from occupied countries held at Buchenwald.  The average workday was 14 hours long, roll call was 4 times a day, and the dead had to be taken to roll call.  When the war was ending, the Allies bombed near the camp.  Soon after, the prisoners were made to stand in the forested areas around the camp during bombings.  On the third day of this, the US bombed the camp instead of the area surrounding it.  It seems that the prisoners had a radio and were communicating with them.

FDR

One thing that this class has kind of shed light on, for me, is the fact that, as Strauss mentioned, you either loved or hated FDR as a President.  We've talked about the possibility that he was naive about the Soviets, and other things.

For me, I wonder what the exact motivations were for not having Truman in the loop at all for any of the actions taking place near the end.  I realize that no one really expected Roosevelt to die, but considering his position coupled with the notion that he was, in fact, sick, what was the deal?  Were there negative implications of having Truman more in the loop?

What If Roosevelt

This week in class we went over the fascinating and rather important but often overlooked section of the What If? of WWII. This form of study is useful, because not only does it force you to know events and possible deviations that may have occurred but didn't, and also to analyze the effects that said events and their alternatives may have had. As has been mentioned, so many events in WWII shaped policy, economy, and society for many years to come. I believe we still feel the echoes of the larger decisions made, especially towards the end of the war.

As for Roosevelt, I wonder how everything may have turned out if he had survived to the end of negotiations with the victors, specifically the Soviets. As it was, he has been accused of going too soft on what was an obvious threat to postwar freedom throughout the world. But knowing that FDR always played his cards close to his chest, I wonder if he didn't have something in the works that he went to his grave with before he could start of complete it. For sure he never shared such sentiments with Truman, but then again he didn't share much at all with his vice. What if ...

FDR

I think it is difficult to discount FDR and his actions of interpreted softness towards the soviets. Everyone had two things in mind: keep another war from happening, and do what's best for THEIR country. Some people may argue that FDR should have taken a more hard nose approach to Stalin and the Soviets but that could have produced future conflicts. Maybe Patton was right when he said we should have just kept moving East, but that would have obviously taken a lot and Russia would have been pissed regardless.
Though the cold war may have come as a result of the decisions made by FDR, I dont think he is to blame.
It also leads to a question of whether that is a bad thing. There were no large conflicts as a result of the cold war and there was a long period of relative peace after WWII. Had we tried to take out or diminish the power of the Soviet Union in WWII, given Stalin's policies, I think it could have led to more conflicts.

WHAT IF'S

Class in general this week was interesting due to the fact that Lon Strauss posed many questions, doubts, and what if's that one should always, not only address but also assess when so many lives are changed in a span of 5 years, and the economies became forever changed due to such events. Therefore when reflecting upon the battle of the bulge or the bombing of tokyo one must wonder not only how these decisions came to pass but also what brought on these decisions and like Lon said, are these decisions inevitable, NO, but what would we do today vs in  the 40's. IT is hard to say because much of those decisions were made by the high ranking officials but the carried out by many. Which comes into the factor of, Dont think just react, type of mentality. However still being rather ignorant on military tactics and strategies, I feel that you can strategize all you want but it comes down to the real time decisions that make and break battles.

Class

I thought the argument about FDR being naïve was fascinating because that was the first time I have ever heard that. I always thought everyone loved FDR but apparently not. However, regardless of FDR’s actions, a President will always have individuals that think they have done wrong regardless of what they did, because we know the outcome of their decisions. However, the one problem I do have with FDR is that it seems to me that he kept Truman out of the loop of information, especially about the Atomic bomb I have always found that to be interesting that the Vice-President did not even have a clue about the bomb until FDR died.

I thought the cartoons were very funny and offer a good insight to what the public may have been thinking. I think we should have watched at least one per class, but that is just my opinion. However, about the cartoon Private Snafu I wonder if they were made to break up the routine of Army training or if the Generals thought, the average GI was so dumb that the only way for them to learn was with cartoons? Just a thought.

Presentations

The presentations on the concentration camps were very interesting because of the personal stories they told about the prisoners. I always seem to learn something new when I hear about the Nazi’s concentration camps, mainly the horrible methods that SS members used to kill defenseless individuals. I always thought that the length of the workday between the two camps would have been the same, because I always figured that the Nazi regime managed all the camps from a central location. However, it appears that may not have been the case and maybe the camp Commandant’s had a lot of leeway in running the camps, which was seen in the way one made the Jews work in the factories during bombing raid and one didn’t. Finally, I guess I will never understand how the German people did not have ANY clue about what was taking place in the woods next to their town. I know that the Nazi’s censored a lot of information and spun a web of lies but the disappearing of whole communities is hard to hide.

Presentations:

Although the presentations shared much information, it had to have been depressing for the presenters to research this topic. Each time I hear about the death camps I am overwhelmed by despair and helplessness the people had to have felt. To think that the Jews, young and old, were worked as much as 18 hours a day with little food and drink and fear of offending the guards. At Auchswitz there were 90,000 prisoners with as many as 56,000 murdered. I cannot even fathom what it must have felt like to be one of many who were stripped and marched into the gas chamber. What must a parent have felt who walked with their child or children to their death? However, I did not realize that depending on who you were determined which camp you went to; however it does not appear that one was any better than the other. For instance, at Buchenwald the prisoners were called out as many as four times a day for roll call. If they did not get something right they would have to stand and wait; one time they stood for 18 hours because they did not answer roll correctly. Whether it was a death camp or a concentration camp, death was inevitable, sometimes quicker than anticipated.

Presentations

Buchenwald - There was a lot of good information given in this presentation. I had heard about the lampshade thing before, but never specifically about the "Bitch of Buchenwald". Was she know for anything else that gave her this title? And although it's a grotesque thought, what has happened to the lamps that they did find? I would imagine they were either destroyed or put in a museum somewhere.

Auschwitz - I never realized the camp was divided into smaller sections. I guess it makes sense that not only are men and women kept separate, but also Russians, Polish, etc. With so many prisoners are there any statistics on how many prisoners, if any were able to escape?

April 21-24

The political situation behind the war, especially towards the end of the war, is really fascinating. It is interesting to learn about how the various governments wanted to divide up Europe and then to look back and see how things actually worked out. I found the pros and cons surrounding FDR's administration to be very interesting. I came out of that lecture with slightly more insight on him and a slightly different perspective than I had before this semester. The cartoons were also really good.

I thought both presentations were well done. It always amazes me to hear the number of people who were murdered in the camps. It is a number that is so high it is almost unbelievable, until you see the pictures and hear the evidence, then it is just mind boggeling. I had the opportunity to visit one of the camps and I don't think I will ever be able to forget that experience. I think it was important for the Germans to walk through the camps and see what went on.

Zoo at Buchenwald

Sorry I did not make this clear. The Zoo at Buchenwald was in the administrative part of the camp, though the prisoners could see some of it. The zoo was there for the amusement of the SS officials, it was another benefit like the riding stables. It also acted a showplace for when higher Nazi officials, such as Himmler, came to the camp.

The presentation on Auschwitz was well done. I do not think I ever quite realized the shear magnitude of that particular camp. I found it very interesting that 75% of the prisoners arriving there were sent to the gas chamber. This camp was obvious very efficient in carrying out the Final Solution.

In lecture this week, I was particularly amused by the Donald Duck cartoon. It is hard to believe that Disney was once so racy. I did not previously know that many Disney features were made for adult, though it does explain some of the jokes made in the cartoons.

Presentations

I thought the presentation on Buchenwald was really interesting. You don't really hear much about the work camps vs. the death camps in World War II. In doing the research for my presentation on Auschwitz, I noticed that there were many similarities between them as well from the "Arbeit Macht Frei" saying at the entrance of the camps to the daily rountines.

I think it is also interesting to see the propaganda that the US government used during WWII. Specifically the cartoons seem not so politically correct but I guess that can be expected in a time of war.

Lecture and Presentations

The presentations over the death camps was interesting. How they positioned them in the woods but close to towns so that the SS could have a place to was something I didnt know. The zoo in the one camp was pretty interesting. I dont know why they would have a zoo there though. Its also interesting to know that they tried to burn the evidence before people found out. I think they knew that what they were doing was wrong. We were asked whether or not WWII was inevitable. Becasue of hindsight we think that it was inevitable and I still think that it was. Maybe not to the huge scale that it was, but that another war in europe was going to happen. Countries wanted more land and were upset about the whole treaty of versailes. Hearing about all the politics that was taking place, and the back door politics, was definetly interesting. I didnt know before that FDR did the things that he did. The cartoons were interesting and unique, and a little ridiculous in how they tried to train people.

Caricatures

The political caricatures that we saw were good training aids. This is what they were used for. The reason that they were good was because they delivered to the auduience the intended message for the purpose of training. To assist in the attempt to deliver this information, the cartoon was humorous which always makes learning anything far more easier because it attracts the attention of those involved.

Death Camp Presentation

The Death Camp presentation on Wednesday was done incredibly well. The presenter made a good decision to discuss the specific details of what was ocuring to the individuals who were stuck in these horrible places. By doing this, her presentation delivered a far more affective description of the treachery that was wrought on by the Nazis. The use of different images also brought to life what this situation was like. For example, she explained in detail how three persons to one bunk would sleep in relation to one of her chosen pictures. In my opinion, the content of this presentation was of the most depressing nature.

sledge

sledge mentions that the marines were told to expect 80-85% losses on the beeches alone, but the landing were very lightly opposed. I wonder if this was based on actual intel or just an assumption since okinawa was so close to the home islands.

Helpful Research Paper Tips

Dear Students,

Some of you have visited me during office hours or contacted me via e-mail regarding your research papers. Many of your topics began quite narrow, whether that was the original topic chosen or otherwise. After speaking with me, you have altered your topics, by broadening it or embarking on a new direction. If you have spoken with me and altered your topic in consequence, please post about it here on the blog (for your weekly post credit or out of a desire to help your peers if you have already posted this week). Your experience may be of assistance to other students who are running into difficulties.

Thanks,
Lon Strauss

presentations

i learned some new bits of information from the presenters. I didn't realize that buchenwald held mostly political prisoners and thought that the zoo animals were a little odd-maybe just another mental game played on the prisoners.
i also learned that auschwitz was comprised of 3 sections built at different times that kept adding to its size. I been told that the camp was the size of overland park (for those of you from kansas city)

Death Camps

The presentations were very good and informative. They gave many good detailed accounts. I agree with the other posts concerning the lack of knowledge about the death camps other than Auschwitz. As the presentations demonstrate how bad the other camps were, it is wild that the public does not know more about them. I think it is unfortunate in general that there are so many battles that are relatively unremembered and yet they can have claimed thousands of lives. I guess other camps are kind of the same thing, and there was so much death that it is impossible to know and realize everything that occurred during the war.

Presenting: The Holocaust Camps

As always, this subject was a bit of a downer, and certainly a sobering reminder of just what humans are capable of doing to each other. Even 'civilized' humans. The fact that the Jews and others were considered sub-human I sure played a role in how badly they were treated, like rats to be exterminated, but that is itself showed there was something seriously wrong about society's views on the subject. Apparently Germany had got over the idea of pogroms before Russia and Poland did, but to trade that out for wholesale genocide is not an improvement in any way to me. And yet, though most agree that this sort of thing is terrible, we as a world people tend to try and ignore it when it happens around us, just so long as it doesn't directly effect us. Sad state of affairs, to be sure.

Presentations 4/23

My first question is: What was the purpose of having zoos and parks in Buchenwald?  I am not sure I understood why they did this.  The Germans did many very weird, crazy, and wrong things, but even those things had reasons.  I did not even get a warped reason for them including bears and the like.  It sounds like a costly thing that they did without a very good reason.  

The interesting thing I did find about these awful places is that they grew and grew as time passed.  Auschwitz had three sections that they added for specific purposes each time.  Buchenwald even had 88 satellite sites.  I knew that they kept getting more and more prisoners, but I did not know that they made the camps bigger multiple times.  I guess I assumed that they either killed the prisoners or they created new camps.  This is just something that i had not realized before today.   

Presentations

The presentations were well-done and informative. To see the personal items (glasses, clothing, shoes etc) taken from prisoners piled up in such vast numbers really sort of knocks the wind out of a person. I cannot begin to imagine how a person gets to the point where he thinks that sort of behavior towards, that sort of treatment of, that sort of philosophy about other human beings is remotely acceptable.

Presentations and videos

The presentations on the two concentration camps gave a lot of information that I had not previously heard. I have previously heard and read a lot about Auschwitz, but I never realized it was that large. Learning that it was built up of three separate areas put into perspective how they killed so many individuals.

I had never heard of Bukenwald, but was surprised by some of the pictures shown. Some of the scenery pictures looked like they were of a summer camp, not a death camp. I guess it was all for the comfort of the officers. Does anyone know if "science experiements" were preformed at all of these camps?

The cartoons we watched today were interesting because I didn't realize they were used for training videos. Disney really was involved in a variety of the war effort. They are humorous cartoons, but also give a warning to soldiers about safety.

Political Cartoons

I thought that the political cartoons, especially the donald duck film was funny, but was also very stereotypical and demeaning. I know durig world war 2 many japanese americans were confined to internment camps in the U.S. However, were all of the japanese americans in these camps and have they not seen this film? And were there any critics of how demeaning this film was?

Propaganda played a huge role in the war, but it seems as though this film is just looked at as a mistake in the past that the U.S. has forgotton to remember. Also could these films have had an impact on racial tensions in America after World War 2. Most likely they did and they undoubtedly help lead to the increase of stereotypes on Germans and Japanese.

Political Situation 4/21 Maria Gonzalez

After discussing the political situations of the dominant powers during WWII, it seems to me that each country wanted to not only become the most powerful but they also wanted to keep other countries from becoming the most powerful as well.  These power struggles were not just to keep their country on top.  Leaders were trying to protect their country from things that they feared.  Germany was a fear because they were trying to change the favored international system as well as conquering and controlling countries.  USSR was feared because of their very different communist views.  Power can also become a an issue when more powerful countries make decisions for less powerful countries.  Having this power over a less powerful country can be very frustrating, angering, and lead to conflicts nationally and internationally.  An example of this is the new nations created from the USSR after WWI and the conflict created by these actions.  Political power is what drives political situations and war.  

This week's classes really reinforced for me the situation in the Pacific that led up to the decision to use the bomb. It must have seemed like such a dire situation there, with the fighting tactics of the Japanese. Iwo Jima and the lives lost there, hand-to-hand combat, in addition to the kamikaze pilots and the total unwillingness to surrender or give at all make the Japanese a formidable and terrifying foe.

In addition, the diverse types of terrain of the islands there would have been an added stress that I would not initially think of. It is just one more obstacle to have to consider when fighting there.

Presentations

Monday

Remagen was the town near Cologne where the bridge was located. The bridge was part of a plan to build a series of bridges alon gthe Rhine at the beginning of WWI. The plan was scratched and picked up after the war and a couple of bridges were built. The Allies captured the bridge intact without opposition, allowing them to cross the Rhine.

Wednesday

Eleanor Roosevelt was born October 11, 1884. She and FDR were married in 1904 and had 6 children, with one child dying in infancy. I did not know that FDR's mistress was present when he died. Eleanor wrote a column in the Daily newspaper from 1936-1962, helped with the refugee situation during the war, wrote to soldiers, and boosted both citizen and soldier morale. She died at the age of 78 from Tuberculosis.

Pacific Islands

I found it very interesting to learn about the different terrains of all the Pacific islands. I had never really thought about how different each island was, especailly in different parts of the Pacific. It is also interesting that soldiers never seem to know about the terrian before they arrive on the island, at which point they must adjust quickly to continue to fight.

Presentations

The presentations were all well done. The Remagen Bridge was very interesting. If this bridge was Germany’s last hope for winning the war, one would think more effort would be put into its defense, and accuracy of information about troop movements and numbers. I also found it amusing that their explosives did not work.

The presentation on Eleanor Roosevelt was very interesting. I did not know that FDR was her 5th cousin. She was extraordinary woman, who had many noble causes. I found it very interesting that she helped raise morale of the troops and tried to change refugee laws to allow more Jewish children enter the U.S.

Eleanor Roosevelt Presentation on 4/16

Eleanor Roosevelt was an interesting person, and in some aspects I am not sure if that is good or bad. She seemed to step out of the social norms for women and class during her time, and I do think that this is what made her an extrordinary person. Even after attending boarding school she was not really prepared to be an elite woman in New York. Then she married her fifth cousin, and I want to assume this was partially something that was expected of her. Maybe she did it to fit in because she had not really fit in before. Some of the things she did that I think were more typical of a woman included staying with her cheating husband and caring for him when he was sick and later handicapped.

More interestingly was that she stood out as a great advocator. She spoke up for the war, women's sufferage, worker's rights, and even tried to boost soldiers' morale. What interested me was that she visited bases, became soldiers' pen pal, and tried to be thier voice in congress when they could not be. What made her think of these things, and why did she decide to take action in this manner? I do admire her for fighting to let more Jewish children refugees in the US, but I wonder what sparked her to do this? After learning about this truely extrordinary woman, I do have to that America is better for having had her.

Bombing

They mentioned in the Iwo Jima film that very little was actually accomplished by bombing the island dispite severall raids both before and durring the invasion. It leads to an interesting discussion on the reasoning behind doing it in the first place. I heard that it was not uncommon for commanders to fire heavy amounts of boms/artilery at a possition for no other reason that to lead GIs on the ground to feel more confident about the possition they were preparing to take. I understand that the Japanese had sufficient time and knowledge of the island in order to build defence strongholds throughout. And it makes sence that givin their underground nature, the recon photos that US commanders had to work with may not have suggested how well the Japanese were dug in.
But it leaves a question in the air of what was the real motivation behind dropping so many shells on the island when it didnt have that much effect. Did the commanders just assume that the Japanese were there even though they didnt have exact locations of troops? Did commanders not even care about taking out possitions as long as troops thought they would have a fighting chance?

Worldcat

I don’t know if anyone else did this but I when to Worldcat.com instead on Worldcat on the KU website. So for anyone that doesn’t know how to get to the site go to the KU website, then to Libraries, then Database, and finally to Worldcat. I have located a lot of good information for my research paper, just thought I would let everyone else know.

Class

This week bought up a proposed invasion that I never heard about before and I have to wonder why the US did not go through with it, which was the invasion of Formosa. I seems to me that the US could have avoided several other smaller invasions and had one larger invasion and accomplished the same purpose. In addition, the more I hear and read about MacArthur I can’t believe that he was left in command. The man was just a glory hound that did not care about the Allies’ agenda, only his own. His actions in the Philippines, by passing his field of commanders and issuing orders to lower commanders was just b.s. Moreover, the attack he ordered on Manila just cost Americans lives and gained nothing.

Presentations

Remagen I think is probability one of the luckiest breaks the Allies got in the whole war. This is one event that no one can doubt helped end the war sooner. I still can’t believe that the Germans allowed this bridge to fall into the Allies’ hands unopposed, we were extremely lucky. The Germans understood their mistake because they killed almost all the individuals responsible for the bridge falling into the Allies’ hands intact. Also, I thought the presentation brought up an interesting point that most Germans considered the war over and lost if the Rhine was crossed. It makes me wonder why the German people or generals didn’t try again to overthrow Hitler after this?

The presentation on Eleanor Roosevelt brought up some interesting facts. I didn’t know that she married her fifth cousin or that FDR's mistress was at his side when he died. I have to wonder what Eleanor was feeling when she found that information out about FDR's mistress. I also thought it was remarkable the First Lady was a pen pal with several soldiers serving on the frontlines. I just don’t think that would happen today.

Presentations on Eleanor Roosevelt and the Battle for the Philippine Sea:

Like others, I felt this presentation was a nice change from hearing about so many war casualties.  She was definitely a much beloved and respected first lady.  So many things that she did were just part of her general character and personality.  I thought it was interesting to note that she was one of the founders of Freedom House, an advocate of human rights and civil liberties.  What a testimony to her and her beliefs that there are still Freedom House offices located around the world today.  It is not surprising that she took such an active part in FDR’s office affairs.  Together they were a very impressive team.       

 

In the presentation on the Battle of the Philippine Sea, or the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot, I thought the part about the Kamikaze pilots was interesting.  I did not realize that many of them were college students who dedicated themselves to the cause and were willing to die for it in such a way.  WW II had its own suicide bombers in the form of this group.  I also did not realize that this was the biggest aircraft carrier in battle in history.   

presentations and sledge

I found it interesting that the Ludendorf bridge had towers on either side for troops and weaponry. It really show that the bridge was basically built to support the war. Even thought the destruction of the bridge was so important to the Germans it doesn't sound like they put much effort into destroying it.

Eleanor Roosevelt sounded like a very impressive lady. I had no idea she was involved in so many organizations and causes. It sounds like she used her societal position for the benefit of others. Her column in the newspaper would have been very interesting to read; a woman's ideas and insight would have been rare to find at that time.

WE have been discussing the horrible island conditions in class recently and it is completly reinforced in Sledge. How he vividly describes the mud and the dead bodies everywhere shows how terrible the conditions were. He also mentions his entrenching tools and how useless they were on Peleliu. It seems no matter how much training they did away from the front lines they were never prepared for what they were about to face. His story is eye-opening in those aspects.

Presentations and Lecture

I enjoyed learning about Eleanor Roosevelt this week. She had a very interesting life. I thought it was interesting to hear about the things she did and the impact that she had on the world. I think the fact that she was able to be so active in various causes says a lot about her determination. I did not know that she kept in contact with various soldiers who were fighting in the war. I admire her for being willing to be the voice of the soldiers.
I am enjoying Sledge's book. He really gives readers an idea about how horrible the conditions were that these men fought in. I am amazed at how different the condition on the two fronts were (beyond the differences in climate). I can't imagine how difficult it must be to fight an enemy who is hiding in well protected caves and tunnels. The Japanese seem to be fighting with a slight desperate push by this point.

Presentations

I found the presentation really interesting. I never really knew about Eleanor Roosevelt and how she tried to reform so many things in the US from attempting to let in Jewish children to making sure the Tuskegee Airmen got to see combat time. She was definitely one of the most important first ladies in history.

I have also never heard about the women and children jumping off the cliffs in Saipan. Japanese propaganda was definitely influential if almost 75000 women and children committed suicide during World War II.

Iwo Jima

Of course the photograph of the Marines raising the flag is one of the most, if not the most famous photographs from the war. But to hear the details of the battle that led to the photograph just takes your breath away. Both sides were absolutely intent on having that island and both sides were willing to sacrifice everything to have that island..and literally fought tooth and nail over that island.

Eleanor Roosevelt

I was very intersted in the contributions that Eleanor Roosevelt did towards helping out with the war. One area in specific that I found good was that she made strong efforts in getting Jewish Children who were misplaced in the war to come to the United States and gain citizenship. I also was amazed at her contributions to the U.S. and the world following the end of the World War. For example, she always was not far from the leadership spotlight of Washington by being invovled in many diferent help organizations and efforts.

Philippines

The Philippine invasion seems to me one that was not entirely necessary at the time and was done to please McArthur's political motives.  These forces could and should have taken Formosa to help out the Chinese ongoing war at the time.  I could not stop thinking in class how history would have differed if we had gone onto Formosa, landed in China, and helped the Nationalist Chinese fight the Japanese in the war.  If we had, maybe there would have never been a Communist China and the ongoing pseudo-Cold War between the US and China may have been avoided.

sledge and presentations

i was really struck by a part from Sledge when another marine asked him why Peleliu was taken and how army units landed on Morotai with little resistance the same day the peleliu operation began-and that MacArthur walked onto Leyte with ease. the other marine added that he didnt think they did any good, it wasnt helping win the war and their losses were for no good reason. I'm curious as to wether marine vets from that invasion still feel the same today and would make such statements publicly.

I liked learning about the history of the bridge going back to WWI. I also didnt realize that it was constructed with towers that could hold a full brigade. It was alos interesting to know that the designers left hollow points on the bridge meant for explosive charges-almost as if they planned that it would be attacked on day and need to be blown.

Prior to the presentation, i was unaware of the 1st lady's activeness in the war stateside, especially interesting was her impact on the segregated units and her personal correspondence with individual soldiers throughout the war. I had also forgotten that FDR married one of his cousins

Iwo Jima

Iwo Jima did indeed appear to be a horrible place. Asside form the heavy fighting that was occuring there, the island looked evil because it was one gian volcano. The terrain was also very usefull to the Japanese who were able to dig in very well and be protected by the U.S. bombarments. In addition to this cover that they were able to have, the advancing Marines on the ground had no idea where they were located. One other major area of advantage to the defending Japanese was that the heavy units that came ashore were unable to travel on the loose sands on the beaches.

Iwo Jima

The tactics used by the Japanese during this battle were most surprising to me. The vast tunnel system reminded me of the later Vietnam War. Yet I think the most fascinating thing about this was that it was such a small island for so many men to die for. Also the use of hand to hand combat that occured on Feb. 23 as the mountain was being taken seems strange in a time of such mass artilery and technological advances.

Eleanor Roosevelt

This presentation was really interesting to listen to. I think it is a lot easier to connect to the history of World War 2 when someone researches a person and finds relatable qualities in them. I thought the most interesting portion of this presentation was just how much this first lady impacted the home front after her husband was paralized with polio. I also found it interesting that she lobbied to allow Jewish children to come into the US and that congress vetoed it.

Nisei

As I may have mentioned in class, the most highly decorated American unit in World War II was one comprised of Japanese-Americans. Nisei are 1st generation Japanese not born in Japan, or in this case, 1st generation Japanese-Americans.

The unit was the 442nd Infantry Regiment of the 34th Infantry Division. They fought in Italy, France, and Germany.

Kamikazes

I often times look back on the Japanese tactic of the kamikaze as a dying empire's last gasps. And while I still believe that these men knew exactly what they were doing and had thought this through a lot, I also believe that this ... method was supported by those in higher offices who realized the days of the elite Sea Eagles were over, and that now they had not the time nor material to train new aces. So instead they gave them rudimentary pilot training and a simple mission; penetrate the fleet defenses and crash themselves into an American ship. I understand that these were college students, and had done much thinking on the subject, but I think that often timess college students are some of the most idealistic people out there. We are entering the prime of our lives and sense that we have the power to really change things. So it seems logical to me that indeed, many of the one way pilots were our age, and fresh from the universities at which they probably originally wanted to wait out the war. But now with the hated Americans moving on the Home Islands, the time to act was now, and with their beliefs, no greater honor could be bestowed than to serve the new divine wind to save their country.

A side note on divine winds, there was a ridiculous typhoon that hammered Okinawa soon after the US had captured it, destroying about 10 percent of the ships anchored in harbor and around the isalnd. Experts have postulated that had this occured during the invasion, it would have been disasterous for the landing craft and amphibious assualt vehicles used by the Marines to hit the beaches, possibly causing the invasion to fail. Perhaps the divine wind was just bit late.

Remagen and Roosevelt

Two very different presentations that were both full of information I did not know.

The Remagen presentation was really able to shed some light on a battle that I'd heard of and seen bits of in movies, but didn't really understand very well. It is always strange to watch a once-great military start to crumble towards the end of the war, especially in this one where there wasn't one decisive battle that knocked Germany out of the war. To think that their communications had become so fouled that they couldn't even agree to destroy the bridge or defend it (instead opting to weakly defend it and then attempt to blow it at the last moment) is quite a testament to the Allied bombing campaign which had been busy for the last year or so destroying much of the German infrastructure. But in response to some earlier posts, I believe one of the reasons the Germans were planning on waiting til the last minute to blow the bridge was the stream of refugees, good German citizens, that were still streaming over the bridge to escape the moving front lines.

As for the presentation of Eleanor Roosevelt, I'd always heard that there was more to her than the typical first lady of her time, and the presentation outlined that nicely. She was certainly a stronog-willed woman and I suppose she has inspired the political ambitions of women since then. She showed that you could go out and get things done, much like the women in the factories were proving, best personified by "Rosie the Riveter" and others like her. I find it equally important to study the homefront, since the sentiments and values back there tend to affect the troops on the front lines. A nice change of pace.

Soil

We talked about today about the soil at Iwo Jima and Okinawa and I was wondering if the American higher ups did not know this information before going in or what. You think they would have planned better for this, especially the rain. I was just wondering if they didn't know about it or that they were on such short timetable that it didn't matter? Also, could they have planned better for it? One of the main things to know for battle is terrian and it seems they didn't look at it. So am I not understanding this or making to big of a deal over it?

Eleanor Roosevelt Presentation

The Eleanor Roosevelt presentation was a nice change of pace for the class. We have been learning about just the war and hearing about the homefront is nice. Eleanor did a lot of different things and was important in many different aspects of American life. I did not know that she wrote letters to soliders, I thought that was interesting. I learned a lot of new information about her in this presentation.

Remagen Presentation

I found the presentation very interesting. It is hard to believe that the Germans tried to blow the bridge and it didn't blow up and stayed standing for a couple weeks. The thing I don't understand is the Germans knew the Allies were coming and they didn' t have enough troops to stop them why didn't they blow the bridge earlier. I know bridges are important but Germany couldn't mount a counter attack at that time so the bridge was more important to the Allies than the Germans. So why wait and let the Allies take the bridge? This would have slowed the Ally advance for a little bit and maybe the Germans could have regrouped. I just wonder why people wait to blow bridges so long even if they don't need them.

Kamikaze

I did not know that there was so much history behind these missions.  I just thought that Japanese men were trying to complete last ditch efforts to win the war.  In fact the name came from an old tale of divine wind and a storm that destroyed a fleet in the past to save them.  The college intellectuals of WWII had committed themselves to save their families by becoming weapons to target aircraft carriers.  These thoughts and concepts were honorable much like Bushido and the code of the Samurai.  I think that these individuals were even more like the medieval soldiers than the Japanese army men were.  Did they compare themselves to the medieval soldiers?  

Presentation 4/14

As I learned more about the American's taking the Remagen Bridge and moving into Germany, I started to wonder if the Germans knew that they were beaten.  They were worried as the Americans moved towards the bridge, but they only protected it with 36 soldiers.  It was understood that if the americans crossed the river they would soon take victory for the war, but still the Germans did not do enough.  They pulled troops from other places, but it was not enough troops to protect this vital position.  What were the Germans thinking?  

Phillipine Campaign

I am currently taking a Korean War class alongside with this class and I have to say that both of these class have shown MacArthur as a arrogant, sometime ignorant person. It seems as though reputation, stature, and prestige are his motivating factors rather than actually caring about what is going on in the war. The story today shows this. He made sure that there were plenty of photographers and filmers watching is arrival on to the island. Another story I have heard comes from my Korean War class. During the Korean War MacArthur and President Wilson were to land on an island in the Pacific in order to meet to discuss the war. MacArthur told his pilot to make sure that he landed last in order for it to seem that Wilson was coming to greet him and meet with him rather than the other way around. I am sure that he was qualified for his position, but at times it looks like he cares far more about other things than war.

Monday's Movies

I am not sure what the Allies were thinking when they planned the Hurcan Forest and Ardennes Forest battles.  Hurcan Forest did not have a real objective because it was so difficult to get through, and they did not really need to get to the other side.  Then these poor soldier were sent to the Ardennes Forest to recuperate where it was supposed to be very far from the war.  Without any warning or reinforcements they were fiercely attacked.  What were they thinking?  

This Week's Presentations

I had trouble keeping up with the Battle of Budapest movie, and lack of detailed visuals also made it more difficult for me to understand what happened.  Despite this I was able to learn from discussion with my peers and reading.  The most important part of this battle was that the Germans pushed to fight this part of the war, and this caused them to have more difficulty from the war.  

The most interesting part of the Battle of Seelow Heights was that there were so many casualties for both sides.  This gave the Soviets an advantage because they had many more soldiers than the Germans.  The loss of soldiers was bad for them, but so close to the end of the war made winning the war more important.  With this advantage they were able to push through the war and win.  

Class

The videos that have been shown in class this week have been very helpful to me. I think it is important to hear as many first-hand accounts of the war as possible, and the video makes things much more vivid in general. The first-hand accounts help us to remember and acknowledge the importance of events that sometimes don't get more than a glance, such as the battle of the Herken Forest.

The Donald Duck propaganda was also very interesting. Watching things like this from the WWII era make me wonder. I may just not be noticing, but why don't we see more obvious and outright forms of propaganda about war today?

Presentations

Monday

Operation Varsity was in March of '45 and was the Allied plan to get the army over the Rhine River. It was the airborne phase of OPERATION PLUNDER. It was considered the most successful airborne op of the war. In addition, it is the most concentrated drop in history and the largest single airborne drop. It was the only time Germany was invaded by air.

Wednesday

The Battle of Budapest was between the Soviets and the Germans. The 1st week consisted of uncoordinated attacks from all directions. It was part of Operation Margarethe and was the bloodiest since Stalingrad. Soviets sustained from 100,000-160,000 casualties.

General Class

I enjoyed the movies that went along with class this week; it is always best to get the picture from those who were actually there. Especially the segments on the battle of the Herken Forest. I had never heard of it until now, and well, it seems that's the case because, as Churchill said, the winners write the history books and that battle didn't go too well for the winners. It seems like a lot of our troops got chewed up in there, what with it being a defensive dreamland/offensive nightmare to begin with, and the Germans adding artificial enhancements to the already formidable natural defenses of the terrain. As was mentioned in class, the Germans were very good defenders, but towards the end of the war they simply didn't have the reserves to conduct mobile defenses as Model had done back east in Russia during the winter of 41 and so forth. But give them a chance to neutralize the American airpower and armored mobility, and they were very capable of exacting a high toll on those sent against them. It seems that many of Germany's impressive tactical victories involved forests. Ardennes, 1940, Herken Forest, etc. Oh, and I also enjoyed the abbreviated class length. That was a nice bonus.

The Week

I really liked watching the videos during the week. It gave you a perspective into what the troops were going through during the war and the environment they were living in. The cartoons were also entertaining. They were a little disturbing through because Donald Duck was heiling Hitler. I don't see how it won any awards though, but times were different then. The battles seemed to be turning around. The americans not going after Berlin was fine by me. Not taking unnecassary loses was a smart move. Lets just let the other countries take all the loses. They still played a crucial role though in going south and destroying the pockets of resistence. They both moved swiftly and the war ended shortly there after. Did this boost Trumans standings politically? Did he recieve a lot of the credit for the war ending so fast or did the Russians?

I find it interesting how the US perspective about the Soviets changed so much following the war. During the war we were allies against the Nazis, yes perhaps because they were the lesser evil but I think our country's ideology is flawed since following the war we condemed all that had to do with the Soviets during the Cold War.

Donald Duck

Donald duck and disney are great outlets for propaganda, but even better to show different perspectives of what is happening in the war and the psychology behind the war without showing the side of death. We already know that war brings death, therefore with Disney productions I feel that since it is mainly for kids it has to be highly psychological because how else do you reach a viewer in such a complex subject of how wars start, and as adults watching this we pick up on the same overall meanings plus more for the fact that we have been exposed to more. I mean of course as adults we pick up on all of the sexual connotations that disney throws in like the palm trees going up as hitler rides off on the horse with his new german princess and the final line saying" that she will saddle up on him" . Then the overall connotation to the book mein kampf, and also the seen of the rabbit getting eaten by the wolf, again all highly psychological, but at the same time highly intellectual and propagandistic. Disney is great!

Seelow Heights

It is kind of interesting to think of what may have come of the war had the Soviets not "won" the battle. It was mentioned that the US and British sides felt that they would rather use the Soviets to take out Berlin. But I also understood that part of it had to due with the fact that they had been fighting in the war for so long that they deserved the claim of taking out the city. It kind of makes me wonder then if they were not able to move forward would they have still gotten the nod for Berlin. Obviously the battle wouldnt have taken place for a while later, but did the claim of victory change the perspective of what the Soviets were capable of. And did this battle further prove that they were going to give anything to take out the Nazis.

presentations

Operation Varsity was an interesting presentation because of the number of records the battle set for the airborne but it is real unknown today. This battle was a larger assault then D-Day and cost three times the number of lives but is all but forgotten. I also find it interesting that a little over a thousand killed in this jump of 30K+ would make the allies cancel all future jumps because of the causalities. That is not saying the men’s lives were not important but the Allies couldn’t stomach them but would then send men into battle for a piece of land that was not important. Lastly, it was mentioned that someone of Ike’s staff give the battle plan to the Germans. I was wondering if anybody knows if this was the only case or were their more and was the individual ever discovered?

The presentation on Budapest has been the most unique presentation to date. The battle I feel shows just how bad the situation for Germany had become. Germany had to rush in to take control of the country to avoid losing territory to the Soviets without a fight because their ally wanted to surrender. It was also interesting in the way the Russia used psychological warfare in the city against the Germans. I just thought it is only something that has come into use in modern times. This battle also shows that Hitler decision to always stay and fight probably helped end the war sooner. This is seen in the attempted break out where only 700 Germans survived the attempt and over 100k were taken prisoner in the city’s capture. One has to wonder if Hitler would have let his generals make tactical withdrawals if the war would have turned out differently?

The battle of Seelow Heights presentation showed that it was the beginning of the end for Germany and Hitler. It showed that the Germans could do little in the way of stopping the Russian advance and were only buying time. However, I still think the Russians had little if any regard for the lives of the common foot soldier. It seems to me that most battles they won were by numbers alone not better tactics.

video

One of the videos this week talked about the Battle of Hurtgen Forest. This was the first time I heard of this battle and after the video and brief discussion about the battle; I wondered why did America go into the forest in the first place? It seems funny to me that the Americans would cancel future jumps because of the number of causalities but would then turn around and send men to battle for a piece of terrain that was not needed. So far, we have seen several battles like this that historians debate the purpose or need for the battle. While, historians have the benefit of hindsight, why did the professional military minds not see the terrain was not needed in the first place? Finally, I thought the cartoon about Donald Duck was funny but showed a good point. It showed propaganda was heavily used by sides before and during the war and could help explain why some of the German people did not see any problems with Hitler until is was too late.

Presentations

Seelow Heights
It is always interesting to study the endgame section of any war, and WWII is no different. The Russians by this time were hardened after years of battle with the Wermacht, and had gained much hard-won experience on the Eastern Front. The Germans too had learned many lessons from the Russians, also the hard way. But the difference is that the Russian economy was now tooling along at a war pace that even the US would have had to step it up a little to match, while Germany's own economy was starting to crumble under the onslaught of the Combined Bomber Offensive. Seelow heights was the battle Germany wanted to fight but couldn't really, and the battle the Russians would have been ecstatic to avoid, but knew that was impossible. One last clash of the armies of Germany and the Soviet Union was needed before the Soviets could begin the dirty job of mopping up resistance among the rest of the front (random Italian and Romanian units) and crushing/subduing the city of Berlin. Both sides through what they had into Seelow Heights, and though with the weaker position, the Russians had more to throw.

Operation VARSITY
I think someone else mentioned how the Allies tended to come up with grand operations that tended to go off badly. And this is true to the most part. From Dieppe to Market Garden, a series of notable failures were racked up by the Allies. But we must not overlook the successes that came along with the disappointments. Most notable of course is Operation OverLord. Normandy was the turning point of the war on mainland Europe. And even though some things did go wrong with Operation VARTIY and PLUNDER, they did accomplish their objectives, and tied down more German troops in the area. As the Germans discovered in Russia, you can't defend everywhere at once.

Battle of Budapest
It has been mentioned that what a shame that Hungary had to serve as a pawn between the Soviets and the Nazis. But unfortunately, that is the problem with their geography. Much as Poland never developed into the world power it may have because it was conveniently situated between Russia and Germany, the two big power houses in Eastern Europe. I thought the battle of Budapest itself was interesting, the Germans seemed determined to hold the city though I'd imagine that they could have withdrawn to more defensible positions closer to their supply lines. But they stuck it out, and even tried to cut their forces out of the encirclement, which didn't quite work out. But yes, Hungary was in a bad situation either way. You know they rebelled against their new masters the Soviets in the '50s, and the rest of the "free world" just watched as they were brutally crushed by the Red army. Alas.

Presentation: Battle of Seelow Heights

It is apparent that this was a must win battle for the Russian army against the Germans.  It is interesting to note that although Russia suffered the heaviest casualty loss of 33,000 as compared to Germany, which suffered only 12,000 casualties, they were able to claim a victory.

Presentation: The Battle of Budapest:

I thought the artwork and slide show were really creative and interesting to watch.  How sad to think that Hungary had to be the pawn between Russia and Germany.  The death tolls never cease to amaze me – 40,000 Hungarians, mostly those who were Jewish, were killed and that was only one group that suffered during this battle that raged on for a year or more.  

U.S. film in foreign hands

Is there anyway that Axis powers such as Germany or Japan would have ever had access to U.S. media such as the Donald Duck cartoon? I just wonder because although he has never commented on it I'm sure Kim Jong Il has seen 'Team America', or at least knows about it as he had it banned. Do you think Disney would have been so blatantly disrespectful of all the axis leaders if he thought they would ever see his cartoon? Do you think making fun of an enemy, even in cartoon form, could result in a much more aggressive attack against the U.S. (during WWII or modern day)?
There's obviously no right or wrong answer... these are just questions that popped into my head while thinking about the cartoon.

Presentation: Operation Varsity

I found the detailed information about this operation very interesting, such as:  this was the last time the Allies used gliders on the opposing forces; gliders were released from a record 2,500 feet; this was the only time Germany invaded from the air; this was the most successful Allied air strike during the war; and, 3,000 German POWs were taken the first day.  Even though there was battle after battle, it never ceases to amaze me how each one has a “first” event of the war.

Until the presentations, I was not familiar with the battle fought in the Hurtgen Forest.  How hard it must have been to fight for your life in a place that was dense, dark, and foggy and home to trees that grew to 100 feet, with only four feet between them.  In addition, solders were instructed to drop things behind them as a clue to their path.  The forest cut off any advantages the Americans might have had, such as air support and tank mobility.

My Deep Thoughts on the Presentations

Operation Varsity - The thing I found most interesting is how often the Allies think they have a great plan and it always seems to backfire on them. The example from this presentation was their use of smoke screens that hindered them finding drop zones.

Seelow Heights - I was just shocked my the sheer numbers the Russians were willing to lose in order to "win" the battle. I think I've mentioned this before but how much quicker would the war have been over and how many deaths could have been prevented if the Soviets had used just a little more military strategy rather than just sending every male with a gun into a fire fight and hoping it all came down to a numbers game.

Battle of Budapest - I think I saw another comment on this but I was most interested in the aspect of the psychological warfare that was used. I'd be interested to hear more about this not only from this battle but in the war overall. Maybe a good topic to recommend to someone taking the class next semester.

Herken forest

This was an unbelievable military event. I am curious to know why this was ever done, it was a lose/lose situation for the U.S. There was no major goal that could be achieved. It seems like some officer got drunk one night and came up with a "great idea." With nothing to gain why did U.S. commanders put so many lives in danger?

presentations

The presentations from this week were very informative. I enjoyed learning about Operation Varsity and seeing how everything is beginning to lead to the end of the war. It amazes me how just one small decision can change the entire war. As I have studied the allies capture of the bridge at Remagen, the impact that one decision can have has been really evident.
The time the allies spent in the forest in SE Germany was pretty intense. I can see why so many men struggled during this time. It must have been terrifying being in that forest and not having any control over what was happening.
It was mentioned that during the battle of Budapest psychological warfare was used more often. What types of psychological warfare were used? Were these methods very effective? Did both sides utilize them?

Hurtgen Forest

it seems very foolish that the Americans would try to advance through a forest that as the video said was composed of 100 foot trees that were in some places only 4 feet apart. Even more foolish is that they tried to go through a forest that was largely planted and maintained by the Germans with pre-constructed defensive positions originally meant to guard the Roer River dams from a land strike (i'm a little surprised the video didn't mention that) and once they got beyond that, they could have been flooded out of the valley

Disney Propaganda??

Was even necessary for Disney to create all this propaganda for the government?  Wasn't obvious to the U.S. citizens of the atrocities and evilness of Germany and Japan prior to the ending of the war?  Wasn't their detailed reports in the newspapers of some of the atrocities committed by both nations prior to the war?  It seems to me that this was kind of superfluous to the overall war effort and it created a way for people at Disney to avoid frontline service by supporting the war effort through the excuse of propaganda.

Operation Varsity

I was unaware of the magnitude of the use of airborne forces in the crossing of the Rhine region. I knew that the Allies used airborne forces but I did not know that their participation here was so affective. I also did not know that they faced such oppostion. They were in a very sticky situation when they hit the earth knowing that the Germans had already aimed their guns at their own drop zone.
Despite the Germans being well prepared for the Allied airborne arrival, they perservered by making this one of the more successful airborne operations of the entire war. They were fortunate to have been relived by friendly forces so soon. Much unlike the British airborne forces at Arnhem in the Market Garden Campaign.

Nazi Caricacature

It amazed me that the U.S. devised such affective caricatures at their Nazi enemies. You always think that the propoganda was only a tool used by the Axis. This film certainly proved otherwise to myself. The specificis of the film showed me how good it was because their were acurate generalizations that I feel most people would be able to learn easily. Regardless, I think it was a good idea for the U.S. to create propoganda of their own.

Operation Varsity

I found this Operation interesting. Even though someone spilled the beans on our invasion, the allied troops were still able to come out on top thanks to the landing technique. Also, the fact that the airborne troops and land were able to work together so well did great thin0gs in our favor. Whether that cooperation was a fluke or not, it still enabled the allies to cancel out other Operations due to the great success.

Seelow Heights and Battle of Budapest

Great job on both presentations today. They were very insightful along with creative. Beginning with Seelow Heights, I find it interesting how the Soviets pushed through regardless of how many casualties lost. Someone was in it to win, huh? Also, I feel like as American people we tend to focus on our wins. It is good to know that it was not just our "super-power" country that helped win the war. Thanks Soviet Union!
As far as the Battle of Budapest....I loved the art work and slide show. It kept my attention the entire time which is difficult to do so early. Along with the Battle of Seelow Heights, I also find it crazy that no matter how physically and psychologically difficult the battle was on the Soviet Union they were still able to come out on top.

Seelow Heights

I thought the presentations today were both wonderful but I was really intrigued by the presentation of Seelow Heights. I thought it was interesting to see the two different theaters in Europe and how close they were to Berlin. Also I always thought that the Soviet Union was careless and did not care about how many men died. But I never looked at it as just wanting this war to end. The battle by itself seemed to be pretty tough and every inch was fought for. I was wondering during the presentation though what the German fortifications were like. Were they very strong or just huge cement barriers and fortifications? Also at this time did Hitler or his staff think they could get out of this or did they think they were doomed? Overall it was a great presentation though.

Donald Duck Cartoon

I found the Donald Duck cartoon to be very funny. It is interesting what goes on during war time. I like how they had a Japanese and Itailian person in the Nazi band. The picture they were trying to portray is very interesting and to think that Walt Disney made the cartoon adds to it. I wonder how well this cartoon worked. Did people want to go out and fight the Nazis after watching this cartoon? Why doesn't the U.S. government make movies like this now for the war in Iraq?

Seelow Heights

We talked in class about the large number of Soviets that died and I was just wondering if they had to take the Seelow Heights or if they could have gone around. It may have taken longer but they would not have lost as many men. I was just wondering if the Soviets wanted to end the war quickly and going through Seelow Heights was the way to do it or if they could have done it another way. Did Seelow Heights have to be taken to take Germany?

Operation Varsity

This operation seemed kind of daring to try and pull off. It seems the allies were looking for anyway to end the war and as quickly as possible. Everything worked out well and it did help end the war. It just seems like such a massive invasion by air. Tons of planning must have went into getting this plan to work. I find it amazing that it worked as well as it did.

Class 4/7

It was amazing to listen to the woman from "The War" video talking about how everyone back home was pulling for the troops who were surrounded at Bastogne - it was evident that people in the States had a fairly good idea how dire the situation had become. What a relief it must have been to hear that the Allies were finally able to get them food and supplies and ammunition.

The Operation Varsity presentation was well done - I especially enjoyed hearing the "firsts" of this battle - such as the quick release parachute and the size of the dropzone.

Operation Varsity Presentation 4/7

Listening to this presentation I was really impressed with the fact that the Allies' paratroopers were so successful. Visability in the air caused difficulties, and when the paratroopers got on the ground they were outnumbered. Despite the difficulties that they had, they were able to pull off this task. I wonder what reasons caused the commanders to keep going with the operation when it was difficult. An informant had given away their plans and left them without the advantage of surprise. I think that this really shows what America could do if they put thier mind to it.



On the other hand, the German plans to defeat the Allies in the air were not going smoothly either. They could not anticipate the paratrooper's landings like they had wanted to. This also caused problems for their comanders when confusion set in. Was this success for the Allies planned or just luck? Looking at the facts it did not seem that they would have an easy success.

Bocage

The French Bocage or "hedgerow" was a huge disadvantage for the Allies.  When preparing for advancement through this area of France the Allies did not expect the Bocage to be as impeding as they were.  Essentially they were killing traps where the Germans could prepare for the unsuspecting Allies coming through the high walls.  Getting through the thick tall walls and deep roots was only their first difficulty.  Once through they had to be ready for the well rested and prepared opponents waiting for them.  It took the Allies time to find a good way to do this, and in many cases it required Sherman Tanks with white phosphorous.  

This important aspect of the war helped the Allies progress with better strategies.  A disadvantge like this made them think and prepare more for each fight.  Most importantly it was the men on the field that had to think for their survival.  This was something new for them, and it made them better and stronger soldiers.  Could the Bocage have been an advantage as much as it was a disadvantage for the Allies' troops?  

Battle of Metz Presentation 4/2

The Battle of Metz was not successful for the Allies for several reasons.  Allied plans left Patton and his troops in difficult situations.  They ran out of supplies, most specifically fuel, because the railroads were damaged or destroyed in initial attacks.  Even with this against him Patton pushed on.  The Germans put up a much stronger fight than had been expected, and this caused the battle to drag on.  

Even when the Germans were fighting strongly, the Allies did not change their strategy at first.  When they did finally change their strategy they were able to achieve more success.  Were the Allies' leaders being too stubborn?  How could they have changed their plans?  And should they have changed their plans?  

Eisenhower Presentation 3/31

Dwight D. Eisenhower was an important leader throughout his life.  During WWII he advised, planned, and commanded many battles and invasions.  Philippines, Normandy, and Sicily are just a few examples.  His leadership was very important for Allied success at this time.  

After WWII he was Supreme Commander of NATO, and later became the President of the United States.  Some individuals were concerned that he did not see the frontline enough, and this would be bad for his presidential role.  His successful military leadership would be important in his presidential leadership.   Would lack of frontline experience take away a necessary experience for him as a presidential leader?  

Photographers 3/31 Presentation

The Photographers of WWII were an important part of this time period for two reasons.  One they could create training videos to better train and prepare new troops.  And two they could better bring the information back home to the people in America.  This created a new cultural awareness that before had not impacted society as much as it now could.  Pictures were printed in magazines and short movie clips were shown weekly.  

This allowed people to create their own thoughts and ideas about what was going on overseas.  In some cases it gave people an empowerment to know what was really going on.  However this was not actually doing what many really thought it did.  People could not see the whole truth even with this photography.  Media sensory did not always allow the truth to be printed.  Facts were distorted or left out.  Few photographers would even see the real front line.  Was this good for the viewers to be seeing?  

Operation Overlord

This point in the war was a big step for planning and leadership of the Allies.  Coordination between the different military forces (air force, army, etc.) and the different Allied countries was used more effectively in Operation Overlord.  Eisenhower, now in overall command, was making a larger effort to make this happen.  The timing chosen for these attacks was also very important because a large portion of the German forces were already occupied in the East.  Also deception was a crafty and important role because they strategically made the German forces think that they would attack Pa da Calias instead.  Doing this they included many details like operations and commanders to throw off their opponents.  These were all things that they had struggled with in the past, and so their achievement was very important for their progress.  

Anzio/Monte Cassino 3/26 Presentations

These battles really show the unprepared side of the Allies.  Looking at the details of what happened, it can be seen that what many would call standard preparations and considerations were not taken.  In Operation Shingle (Anzio), there were not enough troops and supplies to follow through with their plans because they were directed to other battles.  When the troops did go in they were not prepared to do so because procedures and instructions were changed only a short time before.  At the Battle of Monte Cassino, those who planned the attack underestimated the lay of the land.  With the Allies at the bottom and the Germans on the top of the mountains, the Allies were definitely at a disadvantage.  

These lack of preparations cost the Allied forces greatly.  Could better planning have helped?  Was it possible for them to prepare any better without being omniscient?  Were these events inevitable costs of the war?

The photography presentation was by far the most interesting to me this week. However about censorship, the censoring of certain photos is still a practice that goes on today with Iraq unfortunately. But the photos shown were very high quality and displayed epic moments of the war. Very interesting note about catching certain people off guard in photos.

Marketgarden

I think the plan for marketgarden was reasonable and a good idea. The execution of this plan was a little flawed but still a good theory. People were desperate to end the war fast and get their boys home safe. Thats not uncommon, but mistakes made it impossible to complete. The lack of communication was probably the biggest reasons for the failure. If they could have told their commanders about the conditions and was going on would have been immensiley helpful. We learned about other battles and what problems they faced. It seems that this entire war countries faced the problems of outrunning their supply lines or just running out of supplies. I think that thats just an effect of war. It happens in every war.

The presentations this week were good. I didnt know all that stuff about the photographers or pictures that we see about the war. To know that some of them were censored is amazing. It makes you wonder if out government still doesnt try to do that and we just dont see it. The battles that we heard about all seemed to face the same problems we've been hearing over and over again. Its good to hear though that the US forces learned from their mistakes in these battles.

Robert Capa

Very intrigued by the stated line "that if your pictures are not good enough, then you are not close enough." then to go on to say that he was always in the front line, which seemed to be something rare. Later as stated by the presenter, the photos were burned in the printing process, and LIFE magazine printed 10 of these in june 19 1944 and described then as "slightly out of focus", explaining that Capa's hands were shaking in the excitement of the moment (something which he denied) and would later go on to write a autobiographical account about the war title Slightly Out of Focus. His autobiographical is a rather humorous account of the whole thing. Media Filters are just something that blow my mind, because I always feel that it is better to expose than to hide. 

Metz and Market Garden

Learning about the Battle at Metz it's hard to understand how our military leaders did not recognize the tactics that should have been used to secure it.  It seems that hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved during the course of the war if our commanders would have given certain plans and strategies a little more thought and consideration.  Knowing the allies should have simply surrounded and cut off the troops in Metz it's hard to understand how our strategists could have overlooked this.  
It's also hard to understand the reasoning behind giving the most dificult air drops to inexperienced British troops.  When learning about some of these Allied decisions it is hard to grasp the lack of common sense that sometimes plagued the tactical decisions.  I thought learning about the German weapon The 88 was really interesting this week.  I specifically remember watching the Market Garden episode of Band of Brothers not too long ago and wondering what exactly that weapon was.  There is a intense scene that takes place in a snow covered woodland area where allied troops are trying to retreat as 88 shells are exploding above their heads splitting huge trees in two.  

Presentations and such

I enjoyed the presentations this week.  Learning about the role photographers played in the war was interesting.  But that sound really cliche, doesn't it?  It was interesting because that is a perspective we are often not privy to.  I suppose that's the goal of the photographer, though.  They take pictures of the soldiers, and of the war, in order to put the spotlight on them and their sacrifice.  The danger that they put themselves in is not meant to be highlighted.  That said, I presentation that gives them their due is appreciated.  The presentation on the battle of Metz was, while different, as enjoyable of a battle presentation as we've had.  That's saying something, considering that the presenter lacked any visual aids.  As an aside, it was funny for me to hear about Metz as a defensive juggernaut.  Why?  Because, unlike most American's, I follow european soccer - and Metz is downright awful.  Last place in Ligue 1, with a goal differential of -34.  To put that in perspective, the team in second to last place has a goal differential of -6.  But back on topic... it seemed odd, as has been noted, that the allies became so infatuated with taking such a well fortified city.  

Nobody's perfect:  Growing up, I watched the history channel an awful lot.  Sundays more than any other day, because that was when all the WWII shows would be on.  For whatever reason, I found this all fascinating.  Similarly, I enjoyed all of my history classes through middle and high school.  But having advanced a ways in to this class, I can't help but that I was led, to some extent, astray by this previous indoctrination.  That's not to say that the history channel or my earlier teachers lied to me.  Rather, it's simply noting that they didn't have the time do deal with the greater specificity this class can provide.  Particularly, this has been illuminated by the treatment of various generals.  Patton was an unstoppable force that blew across the western front.  Montgomery was a legend, and deserving of that status.  Rommel was a skilled genius in regards to desert warfare.  And growing up for some years in Abiline, Eisenhower may as well have walked on water.  All of these things are impressions a grade school kid will get from watching the history channel every Sunday.  These notions aren't disproved in the next two levels of education either.  Thankfully, this class has stepped forward and provided a more reasoned look at these commanders, including their flaws.  Patton's obsession with taking Metz was clearly a mistake, so he's not perfect.  Monty and Eisenhower both share in the blame for the monumental failure that was operation market garden.  Rommel, clearly, wasn't invincible, because he was defeated.  But no one is perfect, right?  Though these are all instances in which these legends were proven fallible, that does not make their legend any less justified, even if it is likely inflated.  

metz and lecture

The presentation on the battle of Metz had great information on the German and Allied tactics. I seems like Metz was an unlikely place to try to control because of the strong fortress around the city. It also seems poorly planned especially since there were a lack of supplies, like fuel.

The Battle for Antwerp versus the fall of the Nazi power was very frustraiting to hear about. I can understand wanting to take the gamble and try to end the Nazi regime, but for this to work out everything had to go perfectly. Montgomery shouldn't have been in charge of the operation; he represents the main failure of the Allied forces, not cooperating/communicating. In his desire for power and importance he did not take Antwerp and the surrounding areas like he was supposed to, which led to further failure to Allied troops. Without a way to get supplies, how did he expect to win against the well supplied Nazi's in Germany?

Presentations

I thought the presentation about photographers in World War II was interesting because the photographers and journalists today still have the same complaints about being censored by the government. While I agree that their job is very important to document and make a visual record of the war of the public; I feel that a little censorship is not bad. I personally don’t feel that a photographer should publish the last moments of a dying soldier or the faces of dead soldiers that are blown apart. The reason is that they have families and I do not feel it is right to do that to the family members.

The battle of Metz I thought showed that the Allies had a lot to improve in their intelligence gathering and they failed to learn lessons from the Germans about not attacking fortified defenses. In addition, it showed their failure to train for possible follow on missions after the initial invasion of Europe. However, I wonder if Metz would have been such a blood bath if the Allies supply chain would have been working properly and Patton do not have to stop for supplies before the attack.

Lecture

I thought the lecture this week shows that the invasion of Europe was not as easy or a guaranteed success like we think today. It was interesting to hear how far behind schedule the Allies had become because of the German’s defenses and hedgerows and until the third week of June the Germans still threatened to push them back into the sea until the Allies took Cherbourg. One has to wonder if the Allies did not destroy the German transportation network in France and the surrounding area if Operation Overlord could have succeeded. Another point in the lecture was the fact Montgomery seems to be the British version of MacArthur. They both seemed to care more about their ego and getting personal glory then seeing the war end.

Presentations on Eisenhower, Photographers, and the Battle of Metz

The presentation on Eisenhower reinforced his leadership role by listing the many battles (and operations) that he oversaw during his command.  There is no doubt in my mind, or probably anyone else’s for that matter, that because of Eisenhower’s successes in WWII and the popularity that he gained, he was a sure winner for the Presidency.   By being appointed as commander of SHAEF, he was not only a leader of the American troops, but was also a leader of soldiers from many different countries as he led them in the invasion of Europe during Operation Overlord.  Even though I am familiar with his many accomplishments, it is still a subject that is worth repeating.

The presentation on the WWII photographers was very interesting.  When you think of war, it seems that the battles, the commanders, and the number of killed and wounded are much of what you hear and read.  The Signal Corps are usually not written in as part of this action.  I liked the detailed information shared such as the 352,000 negatives printed, the 9,100,000 feet of motion picture film shot, and the 35mm Bell and Howell that was mounted on gunstocks for better stability. 

The Battle of Metz, also known as the “forgotten battle,” is another one of those battles I was unfamiliar with until the presentation.  It was interesting to hear such facts as the Allies did not have the armor or heavy weapons to fight but they kept going.  The men were rotated from the front lines to behind the lines in order to rest and go back into battle.  Even though it is not one of the better-known battles, it, too, as many of the other battles, resulted in heavy losses for the Allies.  The use of white phosphorous to burn out the troops that did not surrender seems inhumane; however, war is inhumane.     

Market Garden

Why is it that every time that Monty wanted to do something the Allied command gives into his demands? Over and over again, history shows that he was an overrated general in military terms because of his lack of strategic awareness.  He should have never been promoted to high ranking command of combat troops because of his ineptness.  The battles that he "won" in North Africa were for a large part due to the Axis lack of supplies and looking elsewhere (Russia) in terms of reserve manpower and supply.  Monty's grandiose plan of Market Garden is a perfect example of his personal vendetta to glorify himself and bask in the rays of praise.  He ignored reports, oversimplified his plans, and continuously brought disaster upon his commands, especially in Market Garden.

Presentations

I thought the presentations this week were very interesting because I knew little about each of them. I had never really thought about the use of photography in WWII even though you always see battle photos in movies, books, etc. Now that I think about it, there really are few color pictures of this war. It makes sense if the film was poor quality and expensive. I can also see the need to use it in training medical personnel vs. making informational movies.

I have never even heard of the Battle of Metz. Since it was heavily fortified by the Germans, I would've assumed that it would be given more credit in history. I guess that since it wasn't a key part of the German defense it was overlooked.

Since it was important to not give one country the ability to claim the defeat of Germany, I didn't really understand why Eisenhower sided with Montgomery in Operation Market Garden. It seemed like Montgomery was all about using the British to defeat the Germans with the other Allies just backing them up. Without the other countries, England could not have been able to defeat the Germans. They just didn't have enough man power so I thought this move was a little risky on their part.

Hedgerows and presentations

I had not really thought about how much of a problem the hedgerows would have caused the troops during the war before this week. They presented the Allies with a unique challenge. The devices that were developed to break through the hedgerows were pretty clever. By this point were the infantry soldiers still thought of as unintelligent? I think the fact that the men who were fighting in areas with hedgerows were able to come up with ways to get through the hedges, is a great example of their knowledge and skill level.

The photography presentation was very interesting. It is interesting to see how far the profession has come since WW II. I didn't realize that there were photographers with the troops on Normandy. I also thought it was interesting to see how the pictures were used by the media.

I don't understand why we had no actual information on Metz before we tried to enter the city. It sounds like it was very well defended and protected from invasions. The battle cost us a lot of lives without us gaining anything. I agree that the city should have been bypassed.

Hedgerows

I'm sure there is an obvious answer that is not coming to me, but why didn't allied troops just burn the hedgerows down. Surely in the time it took to weld attachments to tanks, plant explosives, etc. they could have just set fire to the area, waited a day or two for everything to burn and gotten rid of the obstacle. While this would have been devastating to the landscape I'm sure blasting holes and driving tanks through them wasn't a great help either. Also based on their lack of accuracy with bombing I doubt too much care was put into protecting landscape.

the Bulge, Company Commander, and Metz

I was amazed to read about all the screw-ups in late 1944. How could so many top US generals- who for the most part had been very solid through out the war, make so many bad decisions all at the same time- from ignoring warnings from Ultra about a German build up, not issuing winter supplies, and letting themselves fall into the same position as the French had 4 years earlier?

The epilogue to Company Commander, though very brief, was one of my favorites parts of the whole book.

It was good to hear some fine information about a campaign that rarely gets attention and fit well with issue of the slowed allied advance covered in lecture- it seems questionable actions such as Metz occur more often then we realize

Presentations

Eisenhower-As this is my first WWII class, and most history classes focus on the political side of things in the U.S. it was actually interesting to me to hear about everything that Ike did before he became president. He was obviously a very experienced leader before taking on the presidency. You don't really hear much about individuals or leaders in the current war, which makes it hard to admire anyone for the great strategy put forth. Also because of this fact I doubt any military leader would ever have enough backing to be elected president in these modern times.

Photography-This was a great presentation. The images really speak volumes about what the troops were going through. Is there still anything like the signal corp to the point where soldiers in battle will take their own pictures or video, or is this now solely done by journalists? I think a lot is lost when it is a reporter's video from miles away rather than a soldier's video while in the middle of combat.

Metz-As everyone else has said I knew nothing of this battle until the presentation. Although there have been several battles and probably several more to come in class that I know nothing about. I did enjoy hearing about a battle that didn't go according to plan, and really was seen as a blunder by the Allies. I think the Allies victory means even more when you hear about such crushing defeats as these.

White Phosphorus

Its hard to image what soldiers went through when attacked with white phosphorus. Unless they were shielded with steel they were defenseless and burned to the bone. It would clearly be effective, but just gives perspective about how horrible the circumstances were in these battles. I think the pictures illustrate this.

The politics of Battle

This week we learned about, among other things, why politicians should usually keep their noses out of military business, especially in the case where they are already in a war to the finish. Without the support of Churchill, General/Field Marshall Montegomery may never have been able to convince Eisenhower and the others that Operation Market Garden would be a success, since he very well may have been relieved of command following the Goodwood debacle. While Eisenhower was always careful about including all the Allies in his planning and decision making, he also made sure that whatever plan conceived was up to military standards. Unfortunately, apparently this did not extend to Operation Market Garden, which as we learned, at the very least failed to accomplish its objectives, if not downright prolonging the war by committing valuable paratrooper divisions to a battle in which they fought as infantry, without armor or heavy weapons, against a numerically superior and upgunned foe. This particular battle just wasn't meant to be. Even had the planning gone better, there was still the problem of not one, not two, but three top notch German officers in the immediate vicinity, ready to take action and crusht the attacks. Of all people, they managed to send paratroopers against General Student, who pioneered the effort early in the war. Market Garden may not have been doomed from the beginning, but it as certainly fragile enough to shatter under any unforseen circumstances.

Metz

The battle of Metz, as was mentioned in the presentation, is rarely heard of. I think I may have only heard mention of it in passing, certainly no in depth coverage of it. I believe that this is indeed because of the negative review it got soon after the war, when the benefit of hindsight allowed us to look back and realize that it was hardly the necessary transportation and defensive hub that Patton believed it to be. I found the descriptions of this fortress city/collection of towns to be very interesting. To think that the Germans were able to use what had been designed as the perfect battleground centuries ago as exactly that is quite a feat. It took some forsight on their part to pull of such an operation, and apprently due to the lack of fuel for Patton, they had the time necessary to fully upgrade the city's fortifications to modern standards. Excellent presentation.

Eisenhower and Photographers

General Eisenhower I believe is one of the great examples of the statesman-warrior. His command skills were very adequate for the task (apart from the support of Operation MARKET GARDEN) but it was his skills as a statesman and coordinator that truly made such operations as TORCH and OVERLORD a success. Where Montegomery had good operational qualities as demonstated in North Africa, he lacked the calm compromising that Eisenhower was able to project and often incensed his allies as much as the enemy. It is not surprising he was able to hold the office of the Presidency fo the maximum of eight years.

Photography during WWII was a massive endeavor, as the presentation pointed out. Almost ridiculous amounts of film was shot, and many, many photographs. It is not surprising that WWII is one of the most-studied events of the twentieth century, it is certainly one of the most well-documented. I found it fascinating the bravery of many of the photographers of both the Army Signal Corps, and the civillians who went along as well. A good presentation on a fascinating, but usually overlooked, subject.

Battle of Metz

The Metz presentation was well done. Despite the fact that the region/city could have been bypassed, it really is a testament to tasks getting accomplished through sheer force of will. Patton's 3rd Army was short on supplies, short on fuel and still was able to get the job done. Absolutely amazing.

American training

I thought it was interesting to learn about American training for Operation Overlord. I thought it was interesting how ill prepard the troops were trained for battle once they were on the contintent. However, even without proper training it was great that troops were able to make due with what they had as it had to have been incredibly difficult and frustrating.

Battle of Metz

The most interesting thing about the Battle of Metz was that I had never herd of it. This was stated by the presenter who informed us that very little mention is given to this battle by the mainstream of U.S. History. I can see why that this battle is hardly mentioned with regards to it being such a costly and perhaps foolish military operation on the Western Front. I was not even aware of such fortifications being in existance in this location either. I thought that the Germans were only able to use the urban areas that were in between them and the Allies. It was a good call of them to recycle the resources that were in the old Magino Line.

Eisenhower

General Eisenhower was by far one of the greatets leaders the U.S. has ever had. I was interested by him starting the war out in the Pacific with McCarthur and then moving his way to the Atlantica by commanding SHAEF. He had much responsiblity considering that his command was joint by leading the the many nations who were fighting the Germans well before the U.S. entered the war. His conduct proves that he executed this job well.
Another point of interest was how he had to ballance the action on the Western Front between Monty and Patton. He showed reasonable leadership by permitting Monty to take the main action on this front opposed to Patton at times. An example being the Market Garden Campaign in which military resources were allocated to Monty's forces opposed to Bradely and Patton in the South.

presentations

I appreciate your all's comments on my presentation. I am really glad that I chose to write about "Ike" in respect to all the work he contributed in his lifetime. His ability to achieve a war career, Presidency, and other huge impacts on the United States government is phenominal. I do want to say sorry for my mispronounciation of "Overlord", it was way to early to put me on the spot. But enough about me...
In regards to the presentation on the photographers of World War II I found it very interesting how they put thier lives on the lines to take pictures. The fact that some of them were standing on the front line just for pictures, that is crazy. I do find it sad, however that only eight of these pictures survived. In retrospect, it might have made him more famous, but it still sucks. Anyway good on your presentation. I found it very thoughtful, and I liked how you did something different.

photographers and Eisenhower

The presentation on the photographers of WWII was very interesting. I had previoulsy heard of the censorship of the photographs, but had never seen any examples of what was censored. It is understandable that the US didn't want wounded soldiers shown, but it also gave the American citizens a false sense of the war. The information about colored film was very interesting, I did not realize that it was used mainly for training videos.
Eisenhower seems to have a great career. His participation in Normandy, the Italian campaign, and Operation Overlord seems to have really helped the Allies. I found it interesting that Eisenhower was never in battle during his military career.

Ike and Photographers

It was good in class today to step back a little from all the battles in the European theater and look at some individuals that played major roles in the events of WWII. I thought both presentations were good, especially the one about the photographers. I think it was important to show that propaganda was used by both sides and so was censorship. Too many times we look at all the negatives of the enemy and do not look at our own disappointments. An example of this would be the Japanese internment during the war. However it was cool to see all the equipment that the photographers used and some of the photos that were published and those that were not. As for the presentation on Ike I thought it was good to see how many operations and functions he served during the war. Obviously he was a key part in the Allied victory.

Overlord

I think it's interesting how the battles of Anzio and Monte Cassino were affected at least in part by preparation for Overlord. The lecture Weds touched on how there were shortages of troops for those 2 engagements because of plans for Overlord

Auschwitz: A HIstory

For whom ever read this book or knows anything more about the subject please comment- In this book at the very end they speak up prisoners who escaped from Auschwitz and with writer documentation and photographs of what was happening at Auschwitz, Why did the Allies not bomb the camp, and in fact they bomb around it, but still they did not bomb the camp. For anyone that knows more about this subject I am very interested.