Three World War II questions

[Roman Soldier]

1. Why weren't all of the obstacles on Omaha beach (barrackades, bunkers) destoyed by bombs dropped from the air? Did the Allies try to destroy these and simply fail?

2. I've heard the reason that France fell to the Germans was because they lost so many resources (ie people) during WWI that they weren't able to replenish their armed forces by 1940. In other words, so many men and women were killed between 1914-1918 in France that they weren't able to produce enough people in the next generation to fight against Germany. Is this true? If it is, then wouldn't Germany have had the same problem?

3. The United States firebombed dozens of Japanese cities, killing thousands. After hearing about these firebombings it is suprising that anyone in Japan was able to survive them. How is it that there are so many people in Japan today when so many were killed during the war?

4. The Nazi concept of an "Aryan" is a non-Jewish person who has Nordic features. There are four features to Nordic people (according to the dictionary).

A) Blond hair
B) Blue eye
C) Enlongated Head
D) Tall

Would the Nazis have eventually gone after people who were blond/blue-eyed but short and without enlongated heads?

Sorry if these questions sound stupid.

 

[Agrippa]

1. Why weren't all of the obstacles on Omaha beach (barrackades, bunkers) destoyed by bombs dropped from the air? Did the Allies try to destroy these and simply fail?

Well, IIRC, the pre-landing bombing of Omaha Beach was off course and the bombers completely missed their targets. However, I don't think the bombs would have done must good against the obstacles even if they had been on target. If a bomb hit near an obstacle it would simply send it flying somewhere else...where it would still be an obstacle.

2. I've heard the reason that France fell to the Germans was because they lost so many resources (ie people) during WWI that they weren't able to replenish their armed forces by 1940. In other words, so many men and women were killed between 1914-1918 in France that they weren't able to produce enough people in the next generation to fight against Germany. Is this true? If it is, then wouldn't Germany have had the same problem?

There have been a number of theories on why France fell to Germany in May and June 1940. One theory holds that there was a fundamental flaw within the Republic, that it was too decadent to wage a war. Others maintain that it was simply poor generalship. You are correct that French population growth and population was lower than that of Germany, but its a problem that stretches back for a century. With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, there was massive population growth in Europe. Eventually, that population growth levels out. The first country where it levelled off was France. I think it levelled off last in Germany, but I'm not sure. So Germany had more people than France and that population was growing faster. The French became concerned with the problem following the Franco-Prussian war of 1871.

3. The United States firebombed dozens of Japanese cities, killing thousands. After hearing about these firebombings it is suprising that anyone in Japan was able to survive them. How is it that there are so many people in Japan today when so many were killed during the war?

First off, there weren't 100% casualties in the bombings. Secondly, not all cities were fire-bombed. Lastly, a large component of any population is rural.

4. The Nazi concept of an "Aryan" is a non-Jewish person who has Nordic features. There are four features to Nordic people (according to the dictionary).

A) Blond hair
B) Blue eye
C) Enlongated Head
D) Tall

Would the Nazis have eventually gone after people who were blond/blue-eyed but short and without enlongated heads?

No clue. Racist ideology is seldom logical though.

 

[Morrissey]

2. I've heard the reason that France fell to the Germans was because they lost so many resources (ie people) during WWI that they weren't able to replenish their armed forces by 1940. In other words, so many men and women were killed between 1914-1918 in France that they weren't able to produce enough people in the next generation to fight against Germany. Is this true? If it is, then wouldn't Germany have had the same problem?

France lost 1.4 million people in WW1, Germany lost 1.8 million. The difference is, Germany's population was double that of France post WW1, so France lost a significantly larger percentage of their population than Germany did. Another of France's problem post-WW1, was that most of the war was fought on their own soil. Very little was fought in Germany, most of it was in Northern and Eastern France. France was remarkably weakened by WW1, much moreso than Germany was.

France also positioned their troops in bad places. The French had expected HItler to follow the WW1 route, and attack France via Holland and Belgium, which he was initially planning to do. France had most of their troops stationed and there and what appeared to be an impenetrable line that was set to crush the Nazis. Hitler however, at the last second, opted to attack through the ARdennes, which was a weak spot for France. Thus, it was much easier for him to overrun the country then. FRance couldn't recover from that blow.

 

[Wolseley]

1. Why weren't all of the obstacles on Omaha beach (barrackades, bunkers) destoyed by bombs dropped from the air? Did the Allies try to destroy these and simply fail?

A couple of reasons:

A) The obstacles were quite small targets for the gravity-borne air-dropped bombs of the period; and even if they had hit their targets, the resulting craters would have made an even larger hazard for the landing troops than the obstacles were.

B) The weather was horrible, which prohibited high-altitude bombing of the pillboxes; the only way to be sure that hits were made would have been low-altitude runs, resulting in a much greater loss of aircraft, and the pillboxes were reinforced to the point where even direct hits would have produced less damage than was desirable. Naval gunfire was a better bet, which is essentially what they used.

2. I've heard the reason that France fell to the Germans was because they lost so many resources (ie people) during WWI that they weren't able to replenish their armed forces by 1940. In other words, so many men and women were killed between 1914-1918 in France that they weren't able to produce enough people in the next generation to fight against Germany. Is this true? If it is, then wouldn't Germany have had the same problem?

The reason France fell to Germany was because the French were still fighting a static trench war, 1918-style. They created a magnificent line of concrete forts with artillery facing Germany (the Maginot Line), but the forts couldn't be moved, and neither could the guns be turned around. The Germans, on the other hand, had developed the concept of rapid movement of armor and mechanized infantry, and bypass/encirclement of enemy positions (Blitzkreig) which the French were not prepared for and had no effective strategy against.

3. The United States firebombed dozens of Japanese cities, killing thousands. After hearing about these firebombings it is suprising that anyone in Japan was able to survive them. How is it that there are so many people in Japan today when so many were killed during the war?

I concur with what others have said above; and also keep in mind that there were still several large Japanese army commands still intact in China at the war's end. These were repatriated home, and disbanded.

4. The Nazi concept of an "Aryan" is a non-Jewish person who has Nordic features. There are four features to Nordic people (according to the dictionary).

A) Blond hair
B) Blue eye
C) Enlongated Head
D) Tall

Would the Nazis have eventually gone after people who were blond/blue-eyed but short and without enlongated heads?

The Nazis went after whoever they wanted. Racial profiling was merely an expedient excuse.

Sorry if these questions sound stupid.

The only stupid question is the one that you never ask.

 

[Injured Soldier]

1 has been answered better than I could answer it.

2. I've heard the reason that France fell to the Germans was because they lost so many resources (ie people) during WWI that they weren't able to replenish their armed forces by 1940. In other words, so many men and women were killed between 1914-1918 in France that they weren't able to produce enough people in the next generation to fight against Germany. Is this true? If it is, then wouldn't Germany have had the same problem?

Nope. If anything, France's mobilization in 1939-1940 was TOO good. If they had wanted to they could have marched into Germany whenever they wanted before the Germans attacked. But there were a number of things (besides the ones mentioned) stopping them beating Germany: 1) Unstable politics, 2) Older,conservative generals, 3) Distrust of the Brits, and 4) morale was low. Points one and three came partly from the Peace Conferences after WWI, and points two and four came partly from WWI itself. There was no spirit of 1914 in 1940, the war cry in France was "let's get it over with". By the time the blitzkreig hit, the French army had been mobilized for a long time though.

3. The United States firebombed dozens of Japanese cities, killing thousands. After hearing about these firebombings it is suprising that anyone in Japan was able to survive them. How is it that there are so many people in Japan today when so many were killed during the war?

People always survive. Even with genocides there are survivors, even though the USSR lost tens of millions during the Great Patriotic War, just before the USSR collapsed it had a HUGE population.

4. The Nazi concept of an "Aryan" is a non-Jewish person who has Nordic features. There are four features to Nordic people (according to the dictionary).

A) Blond hair
B) Blue eye
C) Enlongated Head
D) Tall

Would the Nazis have eventually gone after people who were blond/blue-eyed but short and without enlongated heads?

No. Those Nordic features were only part of the ideal Aryan to the Nazis. The Nazis didn't really "go after" people just because they weren't Aryan enough, they made laws to reduce interbreeding and they did go after the Jews, Slavs and Gypsies, but there were also other people they went after that had little to do with stupid Nazi psuedoscience.

Even Nazis demanded more than a superficial Aryan look, otherwise could they really explain dark Hitler, fat Goering, and ugly Goebbels were Aryan too? Nazi eugenics and pedigree, like all eugenics and pedigree of the time, was based in family lineage. The features were a sign, certainly enough to study them, but not the whole story for the Nazis.

But keep in mind all this racial profiling the Nazis did has no basis in history or science whatsoever. Aryan is a linguistic group, not a race. So I second Agrippa's point, racial ideology makes little sense.

Sorry if these questions sound stupid.

The only stupid question is the one not asked.

 

[Freodin]

To the last question:

A famous joke from the time of the Third Reich (widely spread, never publicly told)
How should a perfect Aryan be like?
Blond like Hitler. Slim like Goering. Erect like Goebbels. Masculine and chaste like Roehm.

 

[Roman Soldier]

Question number 5: Both Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland in 1939. Why did Britain and France declare war on Germany but not the Soviet Union?

 

[Morrissey]

Question number 5: Both Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland in 1939. Why did Britain and France declare war on Germany but not the Soviet Union?

Because Germany was an imminent threat to them and Russia wasn't. Plus, they'd had diplomatic conflicts with Germany before, but not with Russia.

 

[Agrippa]

Question number 5: Both Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland in 1939. Why did Britain and France declare war on Germany but not the Soviet Union?

Germany invaded first and the USSR's invasion 3 weeks later was a complete suprise. Also, they were already at war with Germany, fighting the USSR at the same time would have been biting off more than they could chew and they knew it. Additionally, declaring war on the USSR at that point, since Poland was effectively doomed by then, would have been pointless.

 

[Wolseley]

To the last question:

A famous joke from the time of the Third Reich (widely spread, never publicly told)
How should a perfect Aryan be like?
Blond like Hitler. Slim like Goering. Erect like Goebbels. Masculine and chaste like Roehm.

Another one from the same era has Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, and Göring all driving through rural Germany in late 1944.

Due to the Allied bombing, there are shortages of everything, and life is pretty austere.

Suddenly, as they're passing a farmhouse, a pig runs out on front of the car, and the driver hits it and kills it.

Hitler yells, "Stop the car!", and after the driver has screeched to a halt, he says, "All right, somebody has to go and tell this farmer that we killed his pig. Who's it going to be?"

Goebbels jumps up and says, "Let me do it, Führer. As Minister of Propaganda, I can put a good spin on it for you."

Hitler nods assent, and Goebbels goes up to the farmhouse and knocks on the door.

A few minutes later, Goebbels comes back to the car with a bewildered expression and a huge wicker basket, filled to overflowing with chocolate, cigarettes, canned fruit, sausages---things that simply cannot be had for any price any more, and that they must have been hoarding for years.

Hitler looks at the basket, and says, "What's all this?"

"I...I don't know, Führer," Goebbels stammers. "The man just gave it to me."

"What did you say to him?" Hitler demands.

"I went up and knocked on the door," Goebbels explains. "The man came to the door, and I said, 'Heil Hitler! The pig is dead.'"

 

[Ryder]

Another one from the same era has Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, and Göring all driving through rural Germany in late 1944.

Due to the Allied bombing, there are shortages of everything, and life is pretty austere.

Suddenly, as they're passing a farmhouse, a pig runs out on front of the car, and the driver hits it and kills it.

Hitler yells, "Stop the car!", and after the driver has screeched to a halt, he says, "All right, somebody has to go and tell this farmer that we killed his pig. Who's it going to be?"

Goebbels jumps up and says, "Let me do it, Führer. As Minister of Propaganda, I can put a good spin on it for you."

Hitler nods assent, and Goebbels goes up to the farmhouse and knocks on the door.

A few minutes later, Goebbels comes back to the car with a bewildered expression and a huge wicker basket, filled to overflowing with chocolate, cigarettes, canned fruit, sausages---things that simply cannot be had for any price any more, and that they must have been hoarding for years.

Hitler looks at the basket, and says, "What's all this?"

"I...I don't know, Führer," Goebbels stammers. "The man just gave it to me."

"What did you say to him?" Hitler demands.

"I went up and knocked on the door," Goebbels explains. "The man came to the door, and I said, 'Heil Hitler! The pig is dead.'"

Lol Wolseley!

 

[Jeremiah the Bullfrog]

1. Why weren't all of the obstacles on Omaha beach (barrackades, bunkers) destoyed by bombs dropped from the air? Did the Allies try to destroy these and simply fail?

The bunkers were extremely thick reinforced concrete. With contact fused gravity bombs of the time, it was difficult to destroy such bunkers even when the locations were known. Explosions will tend to follow the path of least resistance and so, unless specifically directed toward a certain point they will simply spead out across the surface and might singe the paint off of a bunker. The only sure way to destroy those bunkers was with direct hits from armor piercing naval shells.

As for the obstacles on the beaches, the steel jacks simply would be blown around by the explosions if that. They are basically scaled up jacks that you play a game with. Either way, they are still obstacles that have to be dealt with somewhere along the line.

2. I've heard the reason that France fell to the Germans was because they lost so many resources (ie people) during WWI that they weren't able to replenish their armed forces by 1940. In other words, so many men and women were killed between 1914-1918 in France that they weren't able to produce enough people in the next generation to fight against Germany. Is this true? If it is, then wouldn't Germany have had the same problem?

The French Army was pretty much superior to the Germans in every way during the early stages of World War 2. The reason that the French lost is because they were trying to fight World War 1 all over again instead of deploying their armored assets to meet the main German thrust.

3. The United States firebombed dozens of Japanese cities, killing thousands. After hearing about these firebombings it is suprising that anyone in Japan was able to survive them. How is it that there are so many people in Japan today when so many were killed during the war?

It does not surprise me a bit to hear that people survived the firebombings. Air raid shelters probably do not burn all that well.

I don't really know about the fourth question.

 

[Striver]

The French Army was pretty much superior to the Germans in every way during the early stages of World War 2. The reason that the French lost is because they were trying to fight World War 1 all over again instead of deploying their armored assets to meet the main German thrust.

I'd have to respectfully disagree with this statement.

Although I have not seen the numbers, (I would love to if someone has a good source) I'm going to assume that France may have had the larger army(and resources) on paper. However, as you pointed out their tactics were quite outdated and the useless (IMHO) Maginot Line was beaten and made to look a fool. French strategy was simply not ready for the German war machine and the Blitz. I honestly don't think that had the divisions been deployed properly that the Germans would have had too much more trouble.

As for the fourth question, I'm sure probably eventually it would have occured.

 

[Agrippa]

I'd have to respectfully disagree with this statement.

Although I have not seen the numbers, (I would love to if someone has a good source) I'm going to assume that France may have had the larger army(and resources) on paper. However, as you pointed out their tactics were quite outdated and the useless (IMHO) Maginot Line was beaten and made to look a fool. French strategy was simply not ready for the German war machine and the Blitz. I honestly don't think that had the divisions been deployed properly that the Germans would have had too much more trouble.

As for the fourth question, I'm sure probably eventually it would have occured.

Actually, I'd argue that the Maginot Line did fulfill its objective. It did force the Germans to go through the Low Countries rather than directly through the Franco-German border. The Germans never seriously considered an attack through the Maginot Line, correct?

The French were quite behind the Germans in tactics, but if they'd had better intelligence and better divisions in the Ardennes, they could have done some major damage to the German armored spearhead. IIRC, there were a number of traffic jams in the forest and the resistance at the Meuse by the second-rate reservists was fierce. Oh, the Germans probably would have broken through eventually, but it may have given the French and the British time to extricate themselves from Belgium and perhaps even defeat the Germans in detail (though this is very speculative on my part).

 

[Jeremiah the Bullfrog]

Although I have not seen the numbers, (I would love to if someone has a good source) I'm going to assume that France may have had the larger army(and resources) on paper. However, as you pointed out their tactics were quite outdated and the useless (IMHO) Maginot Line was beaten and made to look a fool. French strategy was simply not ready for the German war machine and the Blitz. I honestly don't think that had the divisions been deployed properly that the Germans would have had too much more trouble.

I have a book recommendation for this question. Read Dirty Little Secrets of World War 2. It goes into great detail about the France campaign. I do not know where my copy is, and so cannot post the exact numbers but they are in there.

 

[Roman Soldier]

6) I've heard that Stalin planned to ignore the non-agression treaty and invade Germany. Is this true?

 

[Kelly]

I just finished reading an article in WWII History Magazine that mentions the initial bombing and how a number of factors contributed to the lack of greater success.

1. Payload vs. planes and ships vs. time.

2. Spread of attack over all the beaches when some where much less defended then others.

3. Wind, fog and weather factors.


Aside from that. Captured Germans admitted that the bombings were the most frightening experience of their lives and they thought they were all goners. Casualties were actually less than predicted and the efforts of the Airborne assaults on artillery, and extremely effective fighter attacks on German armor made things MUCH better than they could have been.

 

[Agrippa]

6) I've heard that Stalin planned to ignore the non-agression treaty and invade Germany. Is this true?

Most likely, yes. If Hitler hadn't attacked Stalin, Stalin probably would have attacked Hitler. Trying to keep Germany and the USSR (each ruled by a not-entirely-stable dictator) at peace while sharing a border seems impossible. In my opinion, Stalin would have invaded in the spring of 1942 or '43 at the latest. Now, some will say that Stalin planned an invasion that would have occurred in early July 1941, had Hitler not invaded first. I think that's ludicrious; the Soviet Union simply wasn't ready for a full-scale invasion in the summer of 1941.

 

[Roman Soldier]

7) I read a book about how Hitler could have won World War II. It said that he should have listened to his generals and sent his armies through Egypt and conquered the Middle East. This would give him control of the oil fields of present day Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuiwait, and possibly Iran. Germany would then have an unlimited fuel supply while cutting the British supply off.

Would this have worked? Would that, combined with bombing Britain's airfields have been enough for him to win the Battle of Britain?

 

[Roman Soldier]

8) What is the difference between the SS and the Gestapo?