paratroopers at crete

Hitler and the German high command commited several mistakes throughout the war. After the presentation on the invasion of Crete , I couldn't help but think seizing to use airborne infantry was one one them- and how the allies and axis both took away different lessons on paratroopers from Crete. Where the German's saw the negatives, that allies saw the positives in attacks from the air. What impact could German paratroopers have had on the war if they had remained truly airborne soldiers and made more combat drops in later fighting?

North Africa

The battle of North Africa seemed to be between tanks and not so much infantry. I have always wondered about this because would the desert not be a hard place for machinery to operate. Why was the tank so heavily used? I would assume there would be some problems using them and that eventually the commanders would go away from using them as much. Tanks would seem to have a hard time handling in the desert and break down. I know it would be hard for infantry in the desert but you would not have the mechanical problems. I was jsut wondering why the tank was the choosen weapon in the desert.

The presentation on the attack on the Eben Emael was interesting to look at how people thought the war would go. The Belgium thought they could hold up the Germans with forts and that the war would go like World War One. The Germans used new technology and tatics to ovetake the fort. This battle shows how Germany was using new battle tatics, like blitzkrieg, and running over the countries using older tatics. This battle is a good example of how the beginning of the war went as a whole.

North Africa

Today in class we talked about the Italian defeat in North Africa and many of the different amjor players in that area. We did not spend much time on this but I have a couple of questions about this subject. The first is why did the Italians seem to face such an easy defeat but once Rommel arrived in North Africa the war for the area no longer seemed to favor the Allies all the time? Did he have better resources, more troops, or just a better commander? Or was it a combination of all three?

Also I was thinking after class today why Germany would want to spread itself out so much? It was having a war in the western front and about to have one in the eastern front, so why would they then want to go south to Africa? Or did they have enough troops and resources to effectively do this?

Feb. 13 presentations

The presentation on the Belgian fort Eben Emael was a great example of German resourcefulness. As said in class today, during WWI Belgium was able to hold off the German attack, obviously they have learned from past experiences which enabled them to break through Belgium with little trouble. It was interesting to hear about the secret tactics they used and how they practiced with the glider planes on other German occupied forts. Though, I really don't understand how the bombs they used worked. I understand they were strong enough to break through concrete barriers, but did they attach to the structures or something?

The second presentation on the battle on Crete was really the first setback we have heard about in class for Germany, sure they eventually did take over Crete, but their plan did not go as expected and it took longer than expected as well. It was mentioned that this was the last time paratroopers were used, but I was curious, about how long were they actually used? I don't suppose they could have been helpful very long especially because their main objective was the element of surprise and they no longer had that.

No Extra Credit

Dear Students,

I am writing to notify everyone that no student will be receiving extra credit for coming to class on last Wed. during the snowstorn. A student has made a complaint to the Provost's office. In light of this situation, it would be unfair for me to give extra credit opportunities to any student at any time this semester. Earlier today, I had decided I would give extra credit to students who desired to attend the many events this Spring that are WWII related, such as Geoffrey Megargee's (historian at the National Holocaust Museum in D.C.) recent talk on the Holocaust at Washburn and Christopher Browning's (Professor at the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill) upcoming talk at K-State. However, that no longer seems appropriate. I do hope that anyone interested will avail themselves of these great opportunities. There are some very respected historians visiting the Kansas area this semester.

Best,
Lon Strauss

Feb 11-13: 1940 - 41 France, Britain, USSR