Military Docterine

Countries prepared their military for war in their own way.  Some focused on their infantry, and others focused on machine power like tanks and airplanes.  In some cases they had their infantry work with their machine power.  Depending on their tactics each country had their advantages.  Especially in the beginning of the war, their tactics helped determine how successful they were.  My question would be how much did each country look at their opponents tactics to help improve their own?  

The new doctrine

Our tolerance for ambitious dictators is substantially lower than it was pre WWII. Hitler invaded Poland, and several other countries, and still the United States did not enter the war. I suppose we didn't see Germany as much of a threat to us specifically, and we did not want to become entangled in another European war. It took a direct military attack from Japan to bring us in to the war. Now lets skip ahead about 50 years. Saddam Hussein has just invaded Kuwait. Saddam is no threat to us, nor is he a threat to our European allies. It's debatable whether or not he was capable of or even wanted to become a threat to Israel. But in this instance, we did not wait. We (and a substantial coalition) responded, and pushed Saddam back in to Iraq. Obviously, we have had other dealings with Saddam since the first Iraq war. This despite the fact that (some would argue this point) he still posed no threat to the United States or its allies. Even since then, while there is still work to be done in Iraq, there have been rumblings of a possible war with Iran, and to a much lesser extent, North Korea.

Is this, in a way, Hitler's doing? Is it because of him that that our new doctrine focuses on "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" and pre-emptive strikes?

Political will

Interestingly, pre-1941 a lot of Americans were isolationist in their views and some outright supported Germany's actions to re-establish herself. One reason the US might not have been interested in a "rush to war" was because the US population as a whole lacked the political will to become involved with a conflict overseas.

Appeasement

It was mentioned in class on Monday that after Italy attacked and annexed Ethiopia, that it was the first moment of appeasement. The British didn't do anything and so the French didn't do anything.

What were the reasons that the Britsh didn't take action? Were they waiting on a sanction from the League, and if so, who was responsible for following through with any action to carry out whatever the League said?

Canceled Class Clarification

Clarification: No one is being penalized for not attending class on Wed. I checked the inclement weather hotline at 6AM before driving to Lawrence. Classes were not canceled at that time. I simply think the students who suffered through my lecture, when they didn't have to, should receive that portion of their attendance credit. If classes are officially canceled, for any reason, no one will lose credit. I do not encourage you to come to campus. They cancel classes for a reason, after all.

The Battle of Britain

I thought this was interesting because at a time when people believed Hitler to be continuously involved in spearheading the war effort, he decided to go on vacation.  He visited Paris, toured WW I battlefields, and picnicked along the Rhine.  It is obvious that he believed that England, and for that matter Europe, was his.  As a person who not only admired himself, but also saw himself as an admired and exalted leader and hero of the people, he no doubt believed he and his German forces were unstoppable.  The OKW, too, said that the final victory over Great Britain was just a matter of time.  However, without Hitler at the command, military planning in Germany was almost non-existent.  It is apparent after reading this that that his commanders did not have the drive or the ability to knock Great Britain out of the war.  In this chapter, it is interesting to note that it was stated that the Luftwaffe intelligence failed to keep the German operational commanders apprised of the difficult tasks the military would confront when attacking Great Britain.  It is almost like lack of communication between the high commanders resulted in Germany destroying its own defenses.

British lack of mechaniziation

With England being an important military and political power in the world, why did they not take this opportunity to improve their weapons and arms after WWI? Yes, they controlled areas such as Ethiopia that did not have current weapons but they should've realized that only one armored division was not capable enough of protecting their country. If the British had been able to better protect themselves in 1939 when Hitler was beginning to take over Europe, do you think he could've been stopped sooner or was it just inevitable?

Anti-war Protests?

After Pearl Harbor I understand that there were very few Americans that didn't feel obligated to join the war effort, but for those that did oppose the war did protests make any difference to the war effort in the U.S.?
Where there any big names or "celebrities" that are known to have protested the war, and if so how did that change their status?

More Czech involvement

It has been mentioned earlier about how the war may have turned out differently if England and France had been more proactive in defending Czechoslovakia's sovereignty. Well, judging from the tenacious Czech resistance movement that participated all throughout the war, counting among its achievements the assassination of Reinhard Heidrich, I think that this nation would have made good its investing in by England and France. I must surmise that they simply couldn't face the prospect of another continent war, especially since good old Hitler promised to not take any other territories should he be given Czechoslovakia. But had they even just left Czechoslovakia to its fate, no doubt the small but modern Czech army would have been able to fight a hard fight against Germany's still-developing military. The geography of Czechoslovakia was very conducive to a defensive war, and with the Czech arms works of Svoda (or whatever) the little nation could have given the fledgling Wermacht a run for its money. For instance, in the mountains, the Wermacht wouldn't put into practice its lightening war concepts, and though Czechoslovakia would have most likely fallen, it may have taken a few of the surprises out of Germany's invasion of France and the Low Countries, and possibly caused the Germans themselves to doubt their new and untested doctrine.

Mussolini

I find it interesting how every time that I read the pre-history of WWII it seems as though the writing  was on the wall on how Mussolini's Italy would eventually act as an anchor to Germany's war efforts.  Mussolini's military always got itself into trouble, whether it was with Franco, Ethiopia, Greece, and eventually Northern Africa and needed Germany to bail them out.  Why wasn't it obvious to Hitler and the Nazi Regime that Italy would not be a good ally in the coming war?

Hitler's Intentions

Hitler was a very powerful man, who consistantly didn't keep his part of pacts and agreements with other countries. Why didn't some of the major ally countries stand up to him early in the war? What did waiting accomplish, did it give anyone an advantage in the war? He didn't prove himself to be a very trustworthy person. "A War to be Won" made it sound like he really didn't believe he would be stopped. What would have happened if the USA or England had tried sooner to do something? Would they have been able to prevent some of the things that happened?

Versailles Treaty

I find it very interesting that the Treaty of Versailles had such a strong impact on Germany. It actually became a blessing in disguise due to Germany's new clean slate. My question is if the German's were not granted this clean slate, would they have been as successful in the war?

Aid to Poland

After the take over of Czechoslovakia, Hitler declared he didn't intend to pursue more territory. Shortly thereafter he made a move toward Danzig, an independent city in Poland. Why did other nations believe he didn't intend to take over more territory? The British and French dreams of no further war on the continent couldn't have blinded them that much, could they? The Polish were obviously very behind in military technology and had no means of which to defend themselves. Poland tried very hard to remain neutral in the war, but giving up Danzig to Hitler meant giving up their economy and, therefore, their country. I can see why they refused Danzig and tried to hold off the Germans.

Why didn't the French and the British aid Poland further? I wonder if Britain and France came to Poland's aid if further German expansion could have been controlled and harnassed in Czechoslovakia. The British and French were disillusioned to think that Hitler would abide by compromise treaties; Hitler hadn't held up any previous treaties. Britain and France should have up held their declarations to aid Poland because showing some resistance against Hitler might have made him re-think European domination. Hitler only got as far as he did because no European powers wanted to risk another war in means of preventing something that ended up being far worse.

Stance

I know that the U.K and France both didn't want another war after the first world war. They also had a critical economy which they believed couldn't handle another war. But after learning more about Germany acquired more and more land from eastern Europe, I wonder if they could have been stopped and if WWII would have been so devastating. If the British and the French took a stance against Hitler in Chezocoslavakia, or even Austria, would the death toll have been so high? They should've took a stance and put a stop to them even if it meant fighting. I know its easier to say this now than back then, but it still makes me wonder.

Czechoslovakia

After Austria, Hitler said that he would not seek any more land. However, not long after he turned his sight on Czechoslovakia. If the allies had helped defend Czechoslovakia, who had a modern army, instead of appeasing Hitler, do you think he would have stopped his power grabing of European countries?

Phoney War

chapter 3 in A War to be Won- briefly mentioned the "Phoney War" i've only heard this term once before. Can anyone explain more about this?

Different Stances and Technology

I found it very interesting to learn the different milatary standpoints of each country in Europe. I think the availability of technology to each country affected their miliatary strategies. Their resource availability of tanks, guns and men I believe had a direct corralation to their war strategy. Ideology affected their military strategies as well which goes back to how each country fared at the end of World War I as well as their political influence to other countries including western culture. It's important I believe to realize that if some of the circumstances would have been swapped around that their would have been a dramatic difference in the outcome of the war.

Military Doctrine in Europe

It was very interesting to see the differences in military doctrine between Great Britian and Germany. I think it is very fascinating that their was a huge difference in theory on how war was supposed to be fought. J.F.C Fuller did not believe that tanks and infantry could work together and the military in Great Britian was divided into the three main parts of infantry, tanks, and air power. At the same time Germany had a much different theory. They adopted the military advancement of blitzkreig, or lightning war, which believed in the combined arms theory. One real advantage that Germany did have was the chance to build a military from brand new. Obviously Germany took the approach of using all their resources to help each other. While Fuller took the idea that they should be used separately and differently.

Feb 6: cancelled class

I want to thank the 5 students who came into class this morning. At 6AM this morning, we still had classes. Now they are cancelled. So, the brave souls who were with me this morning shall receive extra attendance credit for heroically venturing out into the snow and stoically attending my class. No one is being penalized for not attending class. I simply think they should receive the portion of their attendance credit for suffering through my lecture when they didn't have to.

Since we do not have time for me to repeat this lecture. I will put some notes up on Blackboard under Course Documents. We covered the Anti-Comintern Pact, Anschluss, Czechoslovakia, Munich Pact, German-Soviet Pact, and Poland. We watched an American film on all of that, as well as a German film on Poland. Also, please pay attention to your reading on the Polish invasion. I did not go over that in detail, since the book does a fair job with it.

Feb 4-6: Doctrine & Slippery Slope to War

Great Job over your first week!! Remember to create your own post and then comment on two others.

Re: Hitler's faces

I think that to say Hitler spent his youth in a "softer" way is true. However, when one considers the definition of architect as it applies to something other than literal buildings, Hitler's transformation isn't all that hard to understand. Clearly he had a very specific "architecture" for Germany in mind, and felt that he was just the person to design said architecture. Couple that with the idea that he felt that he and he alone knew what was the BEST design (blueprint) for Germany and you can begin to understand why that transformation took place. After all, when you build your new design doesn't demolition/clearing of the site take place first? I'm not sure Hitler viewed those he was killing as anything other than construction debris - so to speak.