DOCSLIB.ORG

A Process-Tracing Analysis of Germany's Operational Approach To

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Process-Tracing Analysis of Germany's Operational Approach To Troops and crewmen aboard Coast Guard–manned LCVP as it approaches Normandy beach on D-Day, June 6, 1944 (National Archives and Records Administration/U.S. Coast Guard Collection) Behind Enemy Plans A Process-Tracing Analysis of Germany’s Operational Approach to a Western Invasion By Bradley Podliska, Karin Hecox, and Oliver Sagun No plan survives contact with the enemy. —FIELD MARSHAL COUNT HELMUTH VON MOLTKE THE ELDER ixty-four years after Moltke’s observation, two mid-level S German commanders, faced with Dr. Bradley Podliska is an Assistant Professor of Military and Security Studies at the Air Command the herculean task of changing the and Staff College. Major Karin Hecox, USMC, is the Deputy Branch Chief, Operations Division, J32 Intelligence, Reconnaissance Operations, Joint Staff. Major Oliver Sagun, USAF, is Division Chief, C4 course of history on an early June 1944 Systems and Support, Headquarters, United States Forces Japan. morning, failed in their duties. In using JFQ 100, 1st Quarter 2021 Podliska, Hecox, and Sagun 107 Figure 1. German Chain of Command phenomenon (in this case, German defense of its Western theater) in a sequential manner.7 One such process- Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces tracing test is the hoop test. For a Hitler hoop test, a fact must be able to “jump through a hoop” in order to be consid- ered true. The hoop, in this case, is an OWArmed Force Ouftwaffe ONavy OHArmy High Command High Command High Command High Command element of operational design assigned to Keitel Goering Doenitz Hitler an individual German leader or general (see figure 1). In other words, a German commander is eliminated as being at fault OB West Third Air Force Navy Group West for the D-Day loss if the commander did Rundstedt Sperrle Krancke in fact conduct his responsibilities as as- signed in planning.8 Staff, Panzer German War Strategy Army Group G Army Group B Group West Blaskowitz Rommel Understanding Germany’s war strat- Schweppenburg egy, operational environment, and Personal Access problems is crucial to contextualizing Direct Chain of Command Hitler and his commanders for the Conditional Tactical Control of Certain Elements hoop test.9 Hitler, adhering to his Mein Kampf objective of lebensraum structured and qualitative analysis to West), and Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, (living space) in the East, first secured examine German strategy and opera- Army Group B, contributed to the his eastern flank by invading Poland, tions in the events leading up to and German failure at Normandy.3 next conquered Western Europe, and on D-Day, the loss can be traced to More specifically, the research remains then began his campaign to defeat Admiral Theodor Krancke, commander problematic because it fails to answer Russia.10 The Russian invasion stalled, of Naval Group West, and Field Marshal basic questions: Did the Germans have a and by autumn 1942, the Germans Hugo Sperrle, commander of Luftwaffe plan in place to defeat an Allied Western changed their strategy to focus on a Third Air Fleet. Infighting, conflict- invasion? If so, did Hitler and his com- global war, not a theater war. Several ing authorities, and lack of warfighting manders follow the plan? To put it simply, new factors were at play: First, Hitler capabilities clearly hampered German who lost D-Day? These questions are realized the Eastern Front had become command and control of operations on independent of Allied plans and actions a quagmire. Second, the Allies opened the Normandy coast. The Germans did and cover the events leading up to and on a second front in North Africa. Third, have a plan, however, and Krancke and the day of the invasion. the Germans reached their zenith of Sperrle proved to be the weak links: By organizing German plans into manpower (losses could not be made Both failed to execute when facing an elements to create a cognitive map or up).11 By summer 1943, the German Allied invasion on the Western Front. operational approach, historians may situation worsened. Tunisia in North This failure is counter to the mytho- better understand the German defeat.4 Africa fell. Grand Admiral Karl Doenitz logical story of D-Day. The Allies, with An operational approach is “a broad lost the U-boat Atlantic campaign, and overwhelming force and an overabun- description of the mission, operational a German operation to halt Russian dance of courage, executed a brilliant concepts, tasks, and actions required to advances failed. Moreover, the Allies assault plan and won the longest day. As accomplish the mission.”5 Specifically, it invaded Italy and began a relentless air- the story goes, the Allied invasion was is the plan of how Hitler and his gener- bombing campaign over Germany.12 By so superior and heroic that nothing the als sought to defeat a Western invasion. the fall, with manpower and resources Germans did mattered; the good guys Constructing a German operational becoming scarce, the Oberkommando were bound to win.1 At least superficially, approach post hoc will also help future der Wehrmacht (Armed Forces High this story fails to go beyond some notable joint planners better understand a com- Command, or OKW) issued a directive facts. Adolf Hitler micromanaged tactical mander’s role and responsibilities in requiring all changes in strength to be actions, and given his late wake-up on executing an operational plan.6 approved.13 June 6, the Allies took full advantage.2 The German operational plan can The personal feuds and fights over power, be analyzed with process-tracing, a The Operational especially the one between Field Marshal popular qualitative method for perform- Environment in 1944 Gerd von Rundstedt, Oberbefehlshaber ing within-case analysis. Process-tracing In defending about 1,000 miles of the West (Supreme Commander West, or OB evaluates causal links and describes a Atlantic Wall, the Germans assessed 108 Recall / Behind Enemy Plans JFQ 100, 1st Quarter 2021 Troops wade ashore from LCVP landing craft, off Omaha Beach, June 6, 1944 (National Archives and Records Administration/U.S. Army Signal Corps Collection) defense of the coastal environment Allies to have a tank superiority ratio of under OKW, and, on paper, had the sub- based on forces available, evaluation of 10 to 1.18 From April to May 1944, the ordinate units of Army Group B, Army the threat, and terrain. In consultation Fremde Heere West (Foreign Armies Group G, and Panzer Group West.22 with the navy, OB West assessed sectors West) reported the number of Allied Rommel was responsible for the for suitability of troop landing, and divisions as 75 to 90 divisions (a misin- defense of Normandy, where he had defensive obstacles were placed accord- formed count due to double agents and the Seventh Army with the 84th Corps ingly.14 Both the OKW and OB West bureaucratic rivalry). The extreme esti- being the forward corps. In total, the expected the Allies to land at a port.15 mates led Hitler to believe there would Seventh Army had 14 infantry divisions, The Oberkommando der Marine (Navy be a diversionary attack first, followed 1 Panzer division, and 47 heavy guns. High Command, or OKM) stated that by the main attack.19 The 716th Division—comprising mainly an attack would occur at high tide.16 To counter this threat, Germany old men, teenagers, convalescents, and The Germans expected to be able to prepared 10 Panzer divisions and 50 ethnic Germans from occupied ter- move and resupply troops rapidly to the infantry divisions to defend against an ritories—covered the British beaches. invasion area via rail.17 invasion.20 These units were organized The 352nd Infantry Division and 726th under a German command and control Regiment covered Omaha Beach. The Defining the Problem structure that was disjointed, convo- 352nd Division consisted of 12,734 veter- The problem Germany faced in 1944 luted, and contradictory.21 Directly ans with modern weapons (for example, was how to defeat enemy forces on under Hitler was the OKW, the OKM, 105-millimeter [mm] and 150mm artil- multiple fronts. For the Western inva- the Oberkommando der Luftwaffe lery pieces). The 709th Infantry Division sion, German estimates varied widely (Luftwaffe High Command, or OKL), covered Utah Beach and the Cherbourg from 10 Allied divisions to as many as and the Oberkommando des Heere port.23 The Luftwaffe Third Air Fleet, 70 divisions. Germany expected the (Army High Command). OB West fell under Sperrle, reported directly to OKL, JFQ 100, 1st Quarter 2021 Podliska, Hecox, and Sagun 109 Figure 2. German Operational Approach Problem: How to defeat Allied forces on multiple fronts with minimal manpower Defense of German Panzers fortresses and defensive/obstacle engage/defeat COG Termination fortified areas plan landing forces Deny Freedom of Allies denied Political, social, economic, Maneuver freedom of and military domination OB West/Army Group B movement over its adversaries Bomb UK Bomb troop Coastal ports transports defense Deny Allied forces Deny Massing of Forces Allied Military Endstate rd the ability to mass 3 Air Force forces ISO landing Forces Defeat of Allied Invasion Bomb U-Boat Mine-laying Defend the Channel beaches Patrols operations and North Sea area Deny Ability to Deny Allied forces Objectives Land Forces the ability to land Navy Group West at the beaches Defeat of Allied beach landing under Reichsmarshal Hermann Goering. to assess an individual German leader military endstate was the defeat of an It operated in a “cooperative” relation- or general. The elements of operational Allied invasion.33 ship with OB West.24 Planes employed in design are taken from Joint Publication Hitler believed that the Allies, if coastal defense were under the control (JP) 5-0, Joint Planning, and include: defeated on the beach, would not make of OB West.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Summary Justice: the Price of Treason for Eight World War Ii German Prisoners of War
    SUMMARY JUSTICE: THE PRICE OF TREASON FOR EIGHT WORLD WAR II GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR A Thesis by Mark P. Schock Bachelor of Arts, Kansas Newman College, 1978 Submitted to the Department of History and the faculty of the Graduate School of Wichita State University in partial fulfillment of Master of Arts May 2011 © Copyright 2011 by Mark P. Schock All Rights Reserved SUMMARY JUSTICE: THE PRICE OF TREASON FOR EIGHT WORLD WAR II GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR The following faculty members have examined the final copy of this thesis for form and content, and recommended that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Arts with a major in History. ___________________________________ Robert Owens, Committee Chair ___________________________________ Robin Henry, Committee Member ___________________________________ William Woods, Committee Member iii DEDICATION To the memory of my father, Richard Schock, and my uncle Pat Bessette, both of whom encouraged in me a deep love of history and country iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank my adviser, Dr. Robert Owens, for his incredible patience with an old dog who had such trouble with new tricks. Special thanks go to Dr. Anthony and Dana Gythiel whose generous grant allowed me to travel to the National Archives and thus gain access to many of the original documents pertinent to this story. I’d also like to thank Colonel Jack Bender, U.S.A.F (ret.), for his insight into the workings of military justice. Special thanks are likewise due to Lowell May, author of two books about German POWs incarcerated in Kansas during World War II.
    [Show full text]
  • VERSION 1.1 Scenarios
    VERSION 1.1 Scenarios Scenario List General Scenario Comments Learning Scenario For the scenarios, please remember the following: “The Black Baron” ...........................................................3 All Units start at full strength, unless otherwise noted. Introductory Scenarios “Storming Gold” ..............................................................4 Leaders stack with any of their Units at set-up, unless other- “Storming Juno” ..............................................................8 wise noted. “Storming Sword” ..........................................................11 All Units may set up mounted or not, In Column or not at the “To The Sea” .................................................................14 owning player’s choice, except when otherwise noted. Terrain “Day of the Tiger” ..........................................................18 and stacking restrictions (no more than one Unit In Column “On to Bayeux” ..............................................................20 in a hex) are in force. Intermediate Scenarios No reinforcements may start piggy-backed unless otherwise “Day of Days” ................................................................22 noted. “The Race For Caen” ....................................................25 “Saga of the 6th Airborne” ............................................29 Where several Units set up together or arrive as a single group of reinforcements, the number of Units is noted in pa- “O Canada” ...................................................................33
    [Show full text]
  • Royal Air Force Historical Society Journal 29
    ROYAL AIR FORCE HISTORICAL SOCIETY JOURNAL 29 2 The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the contributors concerned and are not necessarily those held by the Royal Air Force Historical Society. Copyright 2003: Royal Air Force Historical Society First published in the UK in 2003 by the Royal Air Force Historical Society All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the Publisher in writing. ISSN 1361-4231 Typeset by Creative Associates 115 Magdalen Road Oxford OX4 1RS Printed by Advance Book Printing Unit 9 Northmoor Park Church Road Northmoor OX29 5UH 3 CONTENTS BATTLE OF BRITAIN DAY. Address by Dr Alfred Price at the 5 AGM held on 12th June 2002 WHAT WAS THE IMPACT OF THE LUFTWAFFE’S ‘TIP 24 AND RUN’ BOMBING ATTACKS, MARCH 1942-JUNE 1943? A winning British Two Air Forces Award paper by Sqn Ldr Chris Goss SUMMARY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SIXTEENTH 52 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING HELD IN THE ROYAL AIR FORCE CLUB ON 12th JUNE 2002 ON THE GROUND BUT ON THE AIR by Charles Mitchell 55 ST-OMER APPEAL UPDATE by Air Cdre Peter Dye 59 LIFE IN THE SHADOWS by Sqn Ldr Stanley Booker 62 THE MUNICIPAL LIAISON SCHEME by Wg Cdr C G Jefford 76 BOOK REVIEWS. 80 4 ROYAL AIR FORCE HISTORICAL SOCIETY President Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Michael Beetham GCB CBE DFC AFC Vice-President Air Marshal Sir Frederick Sowrey KCB CBE AFC Committee Chairman Air Vice-Marshal
    [Show full text]
  • How the Luftwaffe Lost the Battle of Britain British Courage and Capability Might Not Have Been Enough to Win; German Mistakes Were Also Key
    How the Luftwaffe Lost the Battle of Britain British courage and capability might not have been enough to win; German mistakes were also key. By John T. Correll n July 1940, the situation looked “We shall fight on the beaches, we shall can do more than delay the result.” Gen. dire for Great Britain. It had taken fight on the landing grounds, we shall Maxime Weygand, commander in chief Germany less than two months to fight in the fields and in the streets, we of French military forces until France’s invade and conquer most of Western shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, predicted, “In three weeks, IEurope. The fast-moving German Army, surrender.” England will have her neck wrung like supported by panzers and Stuka dive Not everyone agreed with Churchill. a chicken.” bombers, overwhelmed the Netherlands Appeasement and defeatism were rife in Thus it was that the events of July 10 and Belgium in a matter of days. France, the British Foreign Office. The Foreign through Oct. 31—known to history as the which had 114 divisions and outnumbered Secretary, Lord Halifax, believed that Battle of Britain—came as a surprise to the Germany in tanks and artillery, held out a Britain had lost already. To Churchill’s prophets of doom. Britain won. The RAF little longer but surrendered on June 22. fury, the undersecretary of state for for- proved to be a better combat force than Britain was fortunate to have extracted its eign affairs, Richard A. “Rab” Butler, told the Luftwaffe in almost every respect.
    [Show full text]
  • Blitzkrieg: the Evolution of Modern Warfare and the Wehrmacht's
    East Tennessee State University Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University Electronic Theses and Dissertations Student Works 8-2021 Blitzkrieg: The Evolution of Modern Warfare and the Wehrmacht’s Impact on American Military Doctrine during the Cold War Era Briggs Evans East Tennessee State University Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.etsu.edu/etd Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Evans, Briggs, "Blitzkrieg: The Evolution of Modern Warfare and the Wehrmacht’s Impact on American Military Doctrine during the Cold War Era" (2021). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 3927. https://dc.etsu.edu/etd/3927 This Thesis - unrestricted is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Works at Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Blitzkrieg: The Evolution of Modern Warfare and the Wehrmacht’s Impact on American Military Doctrine during the Cold War Era ________________________ A thesis presented to the faculty of the Department of History East Tennessee State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in History ______________________ by Briggs Evans August 2021 _____________________ Dr. Stephen Fritz, Chair Dr. Henry Antkiewicz Dr. Steve Nash Keywords: Blitzkrieg, doctrine, operational warfare, American military, Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe, World War II, Cold War, Soviet Union, Operation Desert Storm, AirLand Battle, Combined Arms Theory, mobile warfare, maneuver warfare. ABSTRACT Blitzkrieg: The Evolution of Modern Warfare and the Wehrmacht’s Impact on American Military Doctrine during the Cold War Era by Briggs Evans The evolution of United States military doctrine was heavily influenced by the Wehrmacht and their early Blitzkrieg campaigns during World War II.
    [Show full text]
  • GERMAN NAVY Records, 1854-1944 Reels M291-336A
    AUSTRALIAN JOINT COPYING PROJECT GERMAN NAVY Records, 1854-1944 Reels M291-336A Historical Section The Admiralty Whitehall, London SW1 National Library of Australia State Library of New South Wales Filmed: 1959 CONTENTS Page 3 Historical note 5 Records of the Reichsmarine Amt, 1854-1913 9 Records of the Admiralstab der Marine, Abteilung B, 1880-1917 15 Records of the Oberkommando der Marine, Seekriegsleitung, 1939-44 16 Charts produced by the Reichsmarine, 1940-41 2 HISTORICAL NOTE The Imperial German Navy (Kaiserliche Marine) was created in 1871, succeeding the small navies of the Kingdom of Prussia and the North German Federation (1867-70). Its existence was recognised in the new constitution, but until 1888 it was commanded by generals and its role was mainly limited to coastal defence. In contrast to Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, Emperor Wilhelm II aspired to create a great German maritime empire. He became Grand Admiral of the German Navy and in 1889 made major changes to the organisation of the Admiralty. It was split into the Navy Cabinet, (Marine-Kabinett) responsible for appointments, promotions and issuing orders to naval forces, the Imperial High Command (Kaiserliche Oberkommando der Marine), responsible for ship deployments and strategy, and the Navy Office (Reichsmarine Amt ) responsible for the construction and maintenance of ships and obtaining supplies. The Navy Office was headed by a State Secretary, who was responsible to the Chancellor and who advised the Reichstag on naval matters. In 1899 the Imperial High Command was replaced by the Imperial Admiralty Staff (Admiralstab). Headed by Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz, the Navy Office, which was located in the Leipzigerplatz in Berlin, was the more influential body.
    [Show full text]
  • Military Tribunal, Indictments
    MILITARY TRIBUNALS Case No. 12 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -against- WILHELM' VON LEEB, HUGO SPERRLE, GEORG KARL FRIEDRICH-WILHELM VON KUECHLER, JOHANNES BLASKOWITZ, HERMANN HOTH, HANS REINHARDT. HANS VON SALMUTH, KARL HOL­ LIDT, .OTTO SCHNmWIND,. KARL VON ROQUES, HERMANN REINECKE., WALTERWARLIMONT, OTTO WOEHLER;. and RUDOLF LEHMANN. Defendants OFFICE OF MILITARY GOVERNMENT FOR GERMANY (US) NORNBERG 1947 • PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/c6a171/ TABLE OF CONTENTS - Page INTRODUCTORY 1 COUNT ONE-CRIMES AGAINST PEACE 6 A Austria 'and Czechoslovakia 7 B. Poland, France and The United Kingdom 9 C. Denmark and Norway 10 D. Belgium, The Netherland.; and Luxembourg 11 E. Yugoslavia and Greece 14 F. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 17 G. The United states of America 20 . , COUNT TWO-WAR CRIMES AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: CRIMES AGAINST ENEMY BELLIGERENTS AND PRISONERS OF WAR 21 A: The "Commissar" Order , 22 B. The "Commando" Order . 23 C, Prohibited Labor of Prisoners of Wal 24 D. Murder and III Treatment of Prisoners of War 25 . COUNT THREE-WAR CRIMES AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: CRIMES AGAINST CIVILIANS 27 A Deportation and Enslavement of Civilians . 29 B. Plunder of Public and Private Property, Wanton Destruc­ tion, and Devastation not Justified by Military Necessity. 31 C. Murder, III Treatment and Persecution 'of Civilian Popu- lations . 32 COUNT FOUR-COMMON PLAN OR CONSPIRACY 39 APPENDIX A-STATEMENT OF MILITARY POSITIONS HELD BY THE DEFENDANTS AND CO-PARTICIPANTS 40 2 PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/c6a171/ INDICTMENT
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Boys of Pointe Du Hoc by Senator Tom Cotton Introduction When Describing Major Military Undertakings, Writers Often Emphas
    The Boys of Pointe du Hoc By Senator Tom Cotton Introduction When describing major military undertakings, writers often emphasize their immensity. Shakespeare in Henry V, for example, invites his audience to imagine the king’s massive fleet embarking on its invasion of Normandy in 1415. “You stand upon the rivage and behold,” the chorus intones, “A city on the inconstant billows dancing, / For so appears this fleet majestical.”1 Nearly 600 years later, the British military historian John Keegan described what he beheld as a 10-year-old schoolboy on June 5, 1944, when the night sky pulsed with the noise of prop engines. Its first tremors had taken my parents into the garden, and as the roar grew I followed and stood between them to gaze awestruck at the constellation of red, green and yellow lights, which rode across the heavens and streamed southward across the sea. It seemed as if every aircraft in the world was in flight, as wave followed wave without intermission . [W]e remained transfixed and wordless on the spot where we stood, gripped by a wild surmise of what power, majesty, and menace the great migratory flight could portend.2 Keegan did not know at the time that he was witnessing the Allies’ “great adventure” in Europe, as his nation’s General Bernard Montgomery called it. Somewhat more memorably, General Dwight Eisenhower dubbed it the “Great Crusade.” Operation Overlord had begun, and with it the fight to liberate Europe from Nazi tyranny. Both Keegan and Shakespeare stressed the massive scale of these cross-Channel invasions.
    [Show full text]
  • Operation Overlord James Clinton Emmert Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Master's Theses Graduate School 2002 Operation overlord James Clinton Emmert Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons Recommended Citation Emmert, James Clinton, "Operation overlord" (2002). LSU Master's Theses. 619. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/619 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Master's Theses by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. OPERATION OVERLORD A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Liberal Arts in The Interdepartmental Program in Liberal Arts by James Clinton Emmert B.A., Louisiana State University, 1996 May 2002 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis could not have been completed without the support of numerous persons. First, I would never have been able to finish if I had not had the help and support of my wife, Esther, who not only encouraged me and proofed my work, but also took care of our newborn twins alone while I wrote. In addition, I would like to thank Dr. Stanley Hilton, who spent time helping me refine my thoughts about the invasion and whose editing skills helped give life to this paper. Finally, I would like to thank the faculty of Louisiana State University for their guidance and the knowledge that they shared with me.
    [Show full text]
  • WHO's WHO in the WAR in EUROPE the War in Europe 7 CHARLES DE GAULLE
    who’s Who in the War in Europe (National Archives and Records Administration, 342-FH-3A-20068.) POLITICAL LEADERS Allies FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT When World War II began, many Americans strongly opposed involvement in foreign conflicts. President Roosevelt maintained official USneutrality but supported measures like the Lend-Lease Act, which provided invaluable aid to countries battling Axis aggression. After Pearl Harbor and Germany’s declaration of war on the United States, Roosevelt rallied the country to fight the Axis powers as part of the Grand Alliance with Great Britain and the Soviet Union. (Image: Library of Congress, LC-USZ62-128765.) WINSTON CHURCHILL In the 1930s, Churchill fiercely opposed Westernappeasement of Nazi Germany. He became prime minister in May 1940 following a German blitzkrieg (lightning war) against Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France. He then played a pivotal role in building a global alliance to stop the German juggernaut. One of the greatest orators of the century, Churchill raised the spirits of his countrymen through the war’s darkest days as Germany threatened to invade Great Britain and unleashed a devastating nighttime bombing program on London and other major cities. (Image: Library of Congress, LC-USW33-019093-C.) JOSEPH STALIN Stalin rose through the ranks of the Communist Party to emerge as the absolute ruler of the Soviet Union. In the 1930s, he conducted a reign of terror against his political opponents, including much of the country’s top military leadership. His purge of Red Army generals suspected of being disloyal to him left his country desperately unprepared when Germany invaded in June 1941.
    [Show full text]
  • Unit I Spiral Exam – World War II (75 Points Total) PLEASE DO NO
    Mr. Huesken 10th Grade United States History II Unit I Spiral Exam – World War II (75 points total) PLEASE DO NO WRITE ON THIS TEST DIRECTIONS – Please answer the following multiple-choice questions with the best possible answer. No answer will be used more than once. (45 questions @ 1 point each = 45 points) 1) All of the following were leaders of totalitarian governments in the 1930’s and 1940’s except: a. Joseph Stalin b. Francisco Franco. c. Benito Mussolini d. Neville Chamberlain. 2) In what country was the Fascist party and government formed? a. Italy b. Japan c. Spain d. Germany 3) The Battle of Britain forced Germany to do what to their war plans in Europe in 1942? a. Join the Axis powers. b. Fight a three-front war. c. Put off the invasion of Britain. d. Enter into a nonaggression pact with Britain. 4) The Nazis practiced genocide toward Jews, Gypsies, and other “undesirable” peoples in Europe. What does the term “genocide” mean? a. Acting out of anti-Semitic beliefs. b. Deliberate extermination of a specific group of people. c. Terrorizing of the citizens of a nation by a government. d. Killing of people for the express purpose of creating terror. 5) The term “blitzkrieg” was a military strategy that depended on what? a. A system of fortifications. b. Out-waiting the opponent. c. Surprise and quick, overwhelming force. d. The ability to make a long, steady advance. 6) In an effort to avoid a second “world war”, when did the Britain and France adopt a policy of appeasement toward Germany? a.
    [Show full text]
  • Erwin Rommel Account of Blitzkrieg
    Blitzkrieg, 1940 Directions: Read and annotate the secondary source description of German Blitzkrieg and the primary source account by German General Rommel. Then, write a fake primary source from the perspective of a person living in France, either a soldier or a civilian, describing the experience from their perspective. The period between Germany's defeat of Poland in October 1939 and her invasion of Norway in April 1940 is often referred to as the "Phony War." Not much happened. The French stiffened their defenses while the British moved troops to the continent. The British wanted to send their air force to bomb targets inside Germany but were persuaded not to by the French who feared German reprisal. The major activity consisted of dueling propaganda messages blared from loud speakers across the German and French lines. The French, feeling secure behind their Maginot Line, were ready to fight World War I all over again - a war of defense. Hitler had other ideas. In order to isolate the iron ore resources of Sweden, and secure his northern flank, Hitler invaded Norway and Denmark on April 9. The next blow came a month later. In the early morning darkness of May 10, the Germans unleashed their Blitzkrieg against the Netherlands and Belgium. The attack sent the defending troops reeling. The roads overflowed with refugees fleeing the front. French and British troops rushing to the rescue were caught in the headlong retreat and pushed back. German dive-bombers - the Stukas - filled the sky, strafing the retreating mix of civilians and soldiers with machine gun and bomb.
    [Show full text]