Strategy depends on numerous analytical factors and some of these present challenges to planners. This essay will identify some of these challenges that strategists encountered during WWII. Moreover, it will present strategy as a fluid process requiring refinement throughout.
Admiral Stark’s strategic assessment and recommendations in the “Plan Dog” memorandum set the stage for Allied Coalition military strategy in Europe. He did this by presenting an operational assessment between conducting war alone or with allies. In his memorandum, he presented four courses of action for entry into the war and one reclama that predominantly supports Great Britain without entry into WWII. He also identifies different uses of national power instruments to maintain United States interest in the western hemisphere and discusses how United States strategy includes efforts to prevent the disruption of the British Empire.
Admiral Stark clearly presents true concern for the fall of the British by asserting anticipated losses to critical resources in the western hemisphere would threaten the United States. An example is the anticipated loss of countries in the region, such as Latin America and its natural resources. Our national interests may
…show more content…
suffer as Japans and Axis hegemony advances. Through each course he asserts that the National Objectives, interests, and the balance of power in Europe has long been the fundamental “strong pillar” of American security. If Britain falls, the United States security in the western hemisphere is threatened. Admiral Stark’s memorandum set the stage for the United States coalition strategy, which became even more evident after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Expanding on the importance of coalition efforts, was best presented by Winston Churchill who once said: “The only thing worse than fighting with allies is fighting without them”. Churchill was correct in his statement because conducting operations as a coalition has advantages and disadvantages. The advantages of coalition support are a shared desire to protect national interests and massing of forces against a perceived superior one. However, to ally with other nation states in regional conflicts also has its disadvantages. These disadvantages include competing national interests, and inherent theoretical beliefs in the development of war strategy. Protecting national interests is inherent amongst nation states. During World War II, Germany challenged national interest in Europe by invading regional states. As a fundamental strategy, coalitions collectively bolster the capabilities and overcome inherent weaknesses of a nation’s power. Bolstering capabilities proves to be a distinct advantage through economy of force. As the allies observed, theoretical approaches in developing the strategy to protect each nation’s interest and how to use the coalition forces to achieve objectives proved difficult. A prime example of this was Britain’s desire to strike Germany from the side or “softening up” the Germans, but the United States preferred the more direct approach of “mass and concentration”. Although protection of national interests are shared strategies, each power had its own methods of strategy development and fighting to protect interests.
Britain wanted complete support to prevent Germany’s hegemony in Europe, but the people of the United States believed Japan was the real enemy. This became evident during the two most important conferences of World War II between the United States and Great Britain that established a solid coalition; Casablanca and Trident.
The strategy formulation framework will help identify the strategic decision made during the conferences and how the objectives, concepts, and resources changed through coalition discussions. Moreover, the changes did not significantly impact the conduct of the
war. The Casablanca conference introduced the diverging methods of strategy that was evident in Britain’s objective which was predominantly a “Germany first” undertone. To sell this, British planners included a large delegation prepared for planning and they presented broad problems for discussion, but the United States had a much smaller staff present and they were less prepared to convince Britain to support offensive operations against Japan. By sheer numbers, British delegates overshadowed that of the US which resulted in resentment, fueled disagreements and the conclusions generated were British heavy. The “Germany first” undertone became more evident when Admiral King presented an arbitrary 70/30 ratio in resources against Germany and Japan fueled the disagreements. Although King’s unscientific method of strategy, by British accounts, his method served as the stage setter for concept development for battling Japan and more importantly helped solidify the coalition proportional decision for the cross channel attack. British staffing and the immaturity of United States preparation at the Casablanca conference led to the success of the British priority to defeat Germany. However, the Trident conference in Washington this was not the case. United States planners were prepared to garner support from Britain for operations against Japan and intended to leverage United States support towards the allied offensive against Germany. King suspected if Britain did not become a stakeholder in Japan concepts in the beginning, the United States would not be involved after Overlord. At Trident, Roosevelt successfully lobbied to keep China in the war against Japan. China would then deter Japan from becoming entrenched along the islands in the pacific. With China remaining, Roosevelt shifted United States policy to focus efforts to defeat Germany. With the shift in United States policy, the resources for the cross channel invasion would solidify. Utilizing the experience from actions in Tunisia, the number of forces doubled from what was initially thought. Naval Vessels, air assets, and Logistics seemed to fall into place to support the increase as the planning continued until mission execution. Until execution, planners examine options to determine the plans feasibility, suitability, and acceptability. Analyzing the conferences appeared to meet suitability because the executed plan impacted Germany’s ability to fight. The resources used exhibited Allied might, and how a coalition can enhance shared national interests as well as shape public support. The disagreements presented earlier over military strategy between Britain and the United States was based on their adherence to Sun Tzu and Clausewitz theories of war. Great Britain harbored Sun Tzu while the United States displayed a propensity towards Clausewitz. Sun Tzu provided the theory to not attack armies first. It is important to attack their alliances, and then attack the army. He theorized an intent to take armies (“cities”) intact. These assertions are best found in Great Britain’s offensive strategy to invade Germany’s ally Sicily rather than Germany directly. The majority of the German troops were expecting an invasion from the north across the Strait and therefore had troops built up. By invading the weaker Sicily, in the south, demonstrates Tzu’s first point. After securing Sicily and with the Russians advancing from the eastern front, the allies boxed Germany in. Boxing Germany in proves another theory of surrounding the enemy by using troops when their ratio is ten to one. Throughout the planning to defeat Germany, Britain showed continuous favor to Tzu’s theory to defeat the enemy without fighting which kept the army intact. The United States followed Clausewitzian theories more. Clausewitz theory of engagements in the offense and defense begins with destructions of the enemy’s forces. During the Casablanca conference the United States introduced a “mass and concentration” against German forces directly. Clausewitz also theorized to conquer locations or “Locality”. During the Normandy invasion phase lines were identified. Once each phase line (“city”) was conquered, allied forces would consolidate and prepare for the next. The cities represented Clausewitz theory of locality. The cities conquered by allied troops throughout the war were by combat engagements. Combat, Clausewitz asserts, is by the use of fighting forces, or the allied troops during World War II. Each of the theories and examples provided demonstrate Britain and the United States’ adherence to the theories of Tzu and Clausewitz. During World War II three nations became one. This essay focused on two: Great Britain and the United States. These nations formed a coalition that shaped the future of international instruments of power. The military strategists also solidified their roles as civil military advisors in regional conflicts. More importantly, the strategic leaders during World War II created the future of war and military strategy.
The United States over all did an outstanding job persuading the American citizens to join the support into entering World War Two. As a result, the United States along with Great Britain and France defeated Germany, Japan and Italy to victory of the War. Due to the use of telephones, televisions, radios and films, the message was spread across the nation efficiently.
Even though the US favored neutrality, the United States was forced to enter war. The progressive violent actions of the Japanese government against the US economic interest are what ultimately triggered the United State’s declaration to enter the war.
In order to receive a victory in the Battle of the Bulge, General Patton used Mission Command Analysis in order to understand how he can be successful for this mission. The first thing of understanding t...
It led United States’ official involvement in World War II. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because of a deteriorating relationship with the U. S. The “New World Order”, expansion and resources, and economic sanctions were factors that conducted to another disaster on the Second World War. One reason Japan assaulted U.S.A. Navy was because the "New World Order.” “The ideals of Japan... are represented by the principle that the benevolent rule of the Emperor may be extended so as to embrace the whole world.
Unified Land Operations defines the army operational design methodology (ADM) as “a methodology for applying critical and creative thinking to understand, visualize, and describe unfamiliar problems and approaches to solving them. The operational design methodology incorporated into army doctrine serves as a method to compliment the military decision making process (MDMP). Although the ADM it is often confused with replacing MDMP, its purpose is to address complex problems from a nonlinear approach. ADM helps the commander to answer questions to problems. However, only a collaborative effort of an operation planning team (OPT) will achieve the approach to answering complex problems. Doctrine alone does not provide the answer to complex problems, but rather offers a guide to solve them. To conceptualize the MDMP, planners must incorporate ADM to provide a better understanding, visualization, and description of the problem. The purpose of this paper is to provide the framework to support why ADM is required in the MDMP.
During the early days of World War II the United States remained officially neutral. It was not until the attack on Pearl Harbor, by the Japanese, that the United States had no choice, but to declare war. In the beginning of the war Japan was winning most of the battles (Gailey). These defeats resulted in the morale being low among the American troops. President Theodore Roosevelt wanted to boost morale and push forward the Pacific front with a strike on the Japanese homeland to serve as a testament to American military prowess and retribution for the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor (Shepherd). This eventually trickled down to the Doolittle Raid.
This conclusion seemed to contradict every presumption about Great Britain’s imperial power. In all other conflicts, the British seemed to win decisively but the problem in the American Revolution lies with Britain underestimating the colonists. The British were blind to America’s symbolic presence as an end to an imperial structure. France and Spain aided the colonists in hopes of defeating the tyrannical empire. Britain underestimated George Washington and the Continental Army. Over time, the colonial militias trained in the European fashion and transformed into a challenging force. Ultimately, the most distinctive miscalculation of the British was the perseverance of the colonists and their fight for freedom. While Britain was fighting for control over yet another revenue source, America was fighting for independence and principle. The difference between the motivations was the predominant factor in deciding the
The Control of England in North America and Demise of the Spanish Power in the Atlantic
“No nation ought to be without debt”, states Thomas Paine” (35). However, “a national debt is a national bond…America is without a debt, and without a navy (35).” In the chapter “Of The Present Ability of America, With Some Miscellaneous” Paine paints a picture of the present day 1776 position of the military. He claims that the America’s position of defending herself is minimal due to a nonexistent navy which has been blocked by England. Great Britain’s debt level is high; rather, the compensation for her debt is the investment of a strong navy to defend herself and the American people. Conversely, “our land force is already sufficient, and as to naval affairs, we cannot be insensible, that Britain would never suffer an American man of war to be built, while the continent remained in her hands” (34). Paine understands the important role of a navy, and he warns the American public that America is vulnerable to attack and destruction because the British will never sacrifice their manpower for America’s liberty and freedom from other countries. Paine points out that America has an opportunity to “leave posterity with a settled form of government, an independent constitution of its own, the purchase at any price will be cheap” and prosper with a constitution and a military of her own to defend herself and her people in times of turmoil and crisis because “a navy when finished is worth more than it cost” (34, 36). “Commerce and protection are united,” and America’s “natural produce” of timber, iron tar, leave the American ports to gain marginal profits for the colonial states across the Atlantic in Europe
After World War II began in 1939, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt announced the neutrality of the United States. Many people in the United States thought that their country should stay out of the war. The people wanted the Allied Forces to have the victory. President Roosevelt also wanted an Allied victory because an Axis victory might endanger democracies everywhere. The United States equipped nations fighting the Axis with ships, tanks, aircraft, and other war materials. The Axis did not like this. Japan wanted to take over China, but China refused. China was led by Chiang Kai-Shek at the time. Japan wanted the United States to stop sending China supplies, but the United States refused. The United States opposed the expansion of Japan in Asia, so they cut off important exports to Japan.
Winston Churchill was first to prominently recognise an Anglo-American ‘special relationship’, stating in the years immediately following World War II that he saw the relationship between the US and the UK as an ‘alliance of equals’, according to Sir Michael Howard in the Afterward of The Special Relationship (Howard 387). Howard writes that Britain in general saw the ‘special relationship’ as a vehicle for the United States ‘to accept and underwrite Britain’s status as a coequal world power’ (387).
World War II began on September 1, 1939. It all started when Hitler wanted to expand his territory, and he had planned to invade Poland on this day. Then two years later in 1941 Japan bombed America in which is known as Pearl Harbor and General Eisenhower entered America into World War II. America then joined the Allied powers and helped fight against the Axis powers. The major countries that took part as the Allied Powers in World War II was the United States of America, Great Britain, France, and Russia.Their main goal was to stick together and to defend each other from the attacks of the Axis Powers. The Axis powers consisted of Germany, Italy, and Japan.General EIsenhower had been planning an attack on the beaches of Normandy in France.
It is the intention of this essay to explain the United States foreign policy behind specific doctrines. In order to realize current objectives, this paper will proceed as follows: Part 1 will define the Monroe Doctrine, Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 will concurrently explicate the Roosevelt Corollary, Good Neighbor Policy, and the Nixon Doctrine, discuss how each policy resulted in U.S. involvement in Latin American countries, describe how it was justified by the U.S. government, respectively, and finally, will bring this paper to a summation and conclusion.
The war of 1898 and 1917 were pivotal events in American foreign relations. Both wars shaped the way America is seen from a global lens and also offers insight into the foundation for how we respond to future crisis. Though these wars were drastically different in reasons and outcome, they share close similarities and obvious differences that help us to better understand the decision making process in America’s war efforts abroad.
meanings as the most important long-range planning, the most complex. and profound decisions, and the most advantageous effects from a. bombing campaign as well as leaders with the highest conceptual ability to make decisions and make decisions. As mentioned earlier, strategy is a plan whose aim is to link ends.... ... middle of paper ... ...