World War II Argumentative Analysis

Focusing on the early discussions, to the point where the U.S. entered World War II and began their debate about how to fight the Germans. A coalition force, planning and fighting as a team led to many advantages and disadvantages that ended many times with compromise. The sometimes heated planning conferences and meetings that led to debate and arguments about how to successfully fight and defeat the Germans was tenuous at best. The road was filled with obstacles, but the Allies navigated their way to a victory over the German led Axis Powers.
Eikmeier’s question number two a description of the desired end state was addressed by both Stark in ”Plan Dog” and Wedemeyer in the “Victory Plan”. Eikmeier’s question number two asks what we desire

in January 1943 was important because it confirmed that Sicily would be the next invasion after North Africa. During the conference the British and U.S. planners had many debates about the next phase of the war. The U.S. had committed to the “Germany First” policy, but also felt strongly that they needed to press the Japanese in the Pacific. The British wanted to invade Sicily and focus their operations and resources on the Mediterranean. The U.S. was concerned that a large Mediterranean commitment would consume assets and slow down operations in the Pacific. The major objective, to cross English Channel and invade France had to be put off due to the lack of available resources. With the bulk of the U.S. troops in North Africa and the British troops in the Middle East, there were not enough ships available to reposition the force. This predicament made both parties compromise and settle for employment to the Mediterranean

Their opposing views played a huge role in how each determined their approaches to their strategy for Germany. The British strategic culture was reflecting on the recent defeat of France and their retreat at Dunkirk. They were also bringing baggage along from WWI where they suffered massive casualties, while the U.S. arrived to the fight much later. Because of Dunkirk and WWI wounds, the British was very opposed to head on assaults. The U.S. had a completely different strategic culture that guided their Clausewitzian approach concentrating maximum forces against the Germans. The U.S. had the confidence, industrial might and massive material and resources at their disposal.
Again, Roberts was correct that the majority of the disagreements regarding the Britain and the U.S. strategy for Germany between were their opposing views. The U.S. favored a Clausewitz frontal assault by massing forces while the British favored the Sun Tzu indirect peripheral