I can think of at least one self proclaimed super genius who would struggle with this and several other questions here. Probably walk out half way through the quiz, too.
My guess is they had no idea what the Axis/Allies were, but that is pretty general knowledge. We sort of skipped over a lot of WWII when I was in school.
The Soviet Union was allied with Germany on the "official" act of starting the war. They both invaded Poland to reclaim the territory they lost in World War the First. Technically not part of the Tripartite Pact of Japan, Germany and Italy, they were Germany's equal partner for the only European event of the war for its first 8 months. They were considered an extremely intimidating German ally by the Allies.
Lol the Soviets single handedly won the war. More than 75% of the German war effort and forces were developed on the Eastern Front. The Westerners were fighting old men and conscripts after D-Day and Hitler himself did not really want to destroy the British, whom he considered Nordic i.e Aryan nor the Americans, who were mostly of German/Nordic descent at the time anyway. Au contraire, he considered the Slavs to be subhuman and communism his greatest enemy, the pact was solely to deceive the Soviets and buy time to secure France.
Um....didn't several countries, most notably the USA, provide significant support to the Soviet Union. I don't think any reputable historian would say the Soviets single-handedly won the war. Also, some of the best German generals were on the Western front including Rommel.
Battleships vs Carriers is really only a clear distinction in the Pacific war. In the Mediterranean theater, carriers had a specific role to play as support for battleships, not often as independent groups.
I've read Churchill's entire 6 part history of the war. The impression he gives is that battleships were expensive boondoggles that were easy prey for aircraft.
Ask yourself a question. If battleships didn't exist, how would the war have changed? Now do the same for aircraft carriers.
In fact, battleships were so useless that the last American battleship was commissioned in 1944, retired in the 1950s, and there has never been another one since.
That said, I've modified the question to make it more obvious what the correct answer is.
totally agree about the general uselessness of battleships. however they didn't quite disappear, Reagan's demented plan for a 600 ship navy resulted in 4 Iowa class battleships being recommissioned and brought back into active service.
(I was under the impression, that carrier-groups fought carriers). But I know very little; mostly the Midway stuff.
I was going to bring up small planes, like the Swordfish vs. Bismarck, but I looked that up, & they launched from small carrier Ark Royal.
I assume there would've been island-hopping? (For the Pacific. I have 0 idea of the Atlantic/Africa)
Like, start somewhere in SEA. Pummel an island with ship-artillery. Amphibious landing. Set up airbase. Fly bombing missions to next island. Seems like a terrible situation for causalities & materiel transport.
Maybe less land would be reclaimed from Japan.
I guess bombings to Japan were also launched from carriers.
I guess Pearl Harbor wouldn't have happened. So I get kind of lost in the hypothetical.
If battleships didn't exist.. I guess the main effect would be to Atlantic convoys? I agree with the expensive boondoggle comment.
That was the original design purpose of aircraft carriers - to be support for battleships. But after Pearl Harbor, which destroyed most of the capital ships in America's Pacific fleet but none of its aircraft carriers, it became clear to tacticians and historians alike that battleships had become obsolete and aircraft carriers were what was actually important.
Exactly, that's the second question I had an issue with. I know this sounds bad, but it isn't meant that way: It would be helpful if quizzers would include "from a US perspective" sometimes. I run into this issue sometimes when I have to guess whether the quizz master is American or not because a question was worded in a way that it can only be answered subjectively.
Sure. And that is the reason why after the HMS Illistrious was disabled by Luftwaffe in january 1941, the entire fleet of battleships sat in Alexandria for three months until HMS Formidable arrived in march. If only admiral Cunningham knew that the aircraft carriers were not that important in the Mediterranean during that time. And also never forget the famous battleship raid on Taranto, that crippled half of the Italian fleet. Wait, what?
Battleships were more important throughout the entirety of the war, aircraft carriers played a minimal role in the Atlantic and were mostly pivotal in the Pacific near the end of the war.
There were a couple battles between battleships in the Atlantic. But even there, submarines and destroyers were arguably more important. However, as much as many Europeans here seem to be completely ignorant about anything that happened in the Pacific theatre or its importance, no serious historian would make the argument you just did. Pearl Harbor. Midway. etc. Battleships were important in WW1. By WW2 they had become largely irrelevant, and military leadership still stuck in a WW1 mindset paid a cost for thinking otherwise.
I don't know how much Europeans know about the Pacific Theater, but when talking about the battles there, it's hard to imagine how different they would be without Aircraft carriers. I may not know much about naval attacks in the Atlantic, but Aircraft Carriers were absolutely vital to war in the Pacific. It's why the U.S. still has eleven, and continues to sail them around the world just to intimidate other countries like China.
Ships don't have to fight to be useful, qv the concept of a fleet in being. It's said that on her own Tirpitz was a fleet in being, and just by the threat of a sortie kept units of the British Home fleet pinned down at home, but the reverse was also true, the threat that she could be chased down and sunk like her sister kept Tirpitz in Norway.
Now imagine a scenario in which the Japanese battleships had all been scrapped under the Washington Treaty. What would have stopped the Americans from abandoning island hopping, and amassing a fleet to sail directly at the Japanese home islands. That there were no major fleet engagements between the battleships didn't mean the battleships didn't play their part.
My guess is that you haven't actually read Nietzsche. Not recommended, by the way. The thing about Nietzsche is that his language is so convoluted that it's hard to argue that he has any consistent belief system at all. Or rather, you can make virtually any argument you want about what he is trying to say.
I’d add that there really can’t be any Nazis before the foundation of the Nazionalsozialistische Deutche Arbeiterpartei. Not that similar political ideologies didn’t exist before 1920, but Hitler’s Nazism was a very particular blend of ideologies, mythologies and conspiracy theories, so it would be inaccurate to suggest, whatever you think of his philosophy, that Nietzsche (or anyone else living before the party with its distinctive name was founded) was a Nazi, since it really didn’t exist as a political philosophy until it’s various strands coalesced in Hitler’s deranged mind and, then, manifested itself in the formation of the party.
While I agree with you, and the other comment saying that he died before Nazism became a thing so couldn't have been one, to play devils advocate, his sister was a member of the Nazi Party and did actively promote her brothers works in connection with Hitler's philosophy so there could be some room for confusion.
Directly from Wikipedia: "After his death, Nietzsche's sister Elisabeth became the curator and editor of his manuscripts. She edited his unpublished writings to fit her German ultranationalist ideology, often contradicting or obfuscating Nietzsche's stated opinions, which were explicitly opposed to antisemitism and nationalism. Through her published editions, Nietzsche's work became associated with fascism and Nazism."
So Nietzche was decidedly not a Nazi, his work was just misconstrued to fit the Nazi ideology. I'm not necessarily a fan of Nietzche, but to call him a Nazi is flat out wrong and a disservice to his philosophy.
Calling Nietzsche the 'entire foundation' for Hitler's ideology is ridiculous and almost flagrantly ignorant. I suppose Wagner is to blame for the Battle of the Bulge?
check out the song the D-Day dodgers. Its become now most strongly associated with the Normandy Landings but before Normandy there were many other D-Days, in North Africa, Sicily and Italy.
Number 9. is a fun one, add the qualification "mostly" and it would be mostly correct. The Luftwaffe field divisions had tanks (well armoured self propelled anti tank guns, vehicles as close to being tanks as to make no difference to most people) and the Luftwaffe had ships in the Baltic decked out with big AA guns and radar. So occasions when you were being attacked by Luftwaffe tanks and ships did occur.
The question is entirely correct, not mostly, because it asks what you *should* be on guard for and then presents three choices. Only one of these choices is logical.
Imagine you're in the British Home Guard in 1941 and let people know the Luftwaffe is coming, and someone asks if they should be expecting their land, air, or sea forces as though that's a logical question
Question #5 is a bit loaded. Because every single person wasn't president of the US for part of WW2 one way or another. Wilson is obvious, Truman wasn't President until Roosevelt died therefore not being President until '45, and Roosevelt missed most of the '45 part of the war.
like many other ww2 quizzes, the eastern front is largely unrepresented even though it was the event that led to the demise of the third reich. it would be nice if the eastern front and the soviet union's contributions were properly represented instead of being largely ignored and/or downplayed
My British great grandfather died a few years after the war. It was due to the years of starvation and torture he experienced as a POW in Singapore and Malaysia. Damn right the Japanese didn't treat them well.
Isn't the Japan question technically an opinion question? There would be something wrong with you if do but you could theoretically think that they treated their prisoners well
after some quick math, I now want to meet the ~569 people who thought the Nazis won.
Edit and wonder in how many languages it would be axis or another (translated or not) term.
You might want to read up about the war or either you're making very broad generalizations about what constitutes a single event.
Ask yourself a question. If battleships didn't exist, how would the war have changed? Now do the same for aircraft carriers.
In fact, battleships were so useless that the last American battleship was commissioned in 1944, retired in the 1950s, and there has never been another one since.
That said, I've modified the question to make it more obvious what the correct answer is.
(I was under the impression, that carrier-groups fought carriers). But I know very little; mostly the Midway stuff.
I was going to bring up small planes, like the Swordfish vs. Bismarck, but I looked that up, & they launched from small carrier Ark Royal.
I assume there would've been island-hopping? (For the Pacific. I have 0 idea of the Atlantic/Africa)
Like, start somewhere in SEA. Pummel an island with ship-artillery. Amphibious landing. Set up airbase. Fly bombing missions to next island. Seems like a terrible situation for causalities & materiel transport.
Maybe less land would be reclaimed from Japan.
I guess bombings to Japan were also launched from carriers.
I guess Pearl Harbor wouldn't have happened. So I get kind of lost in the hypothetical.
If battleships didn't exist.. I guess the main effect would be to Atlantic convoys? I agree with the expensive boondoggle comment.
I agree about the importance of carriers but circumstances dictated this as well as strategy
Now imagine a scenario in which the Japanese battleships had all been scrapped under the Washington Treaty. What would have stopped the Americans from abandoning island hopping, and amassing a fleet to sail directly at the Japanese home islands. That there were no major fleet engagements between the battleships didn't mean the battleships didn't play their part.
So Nietzche was decidedly not a Nazi, his work was just misconstrued to fit the Nazi ideology. I'm not necessarily a fan of Nietzche, but to call him a Nazi is flat out wrong and a disservice to his philosophy.
Number 9. is a fun one, add the qualification "mostly" and it would be mostly correct. The Luftwaffe field divisions had tanks (well armoured self propelled anti tank guns, vehicles as close to being tanks as to make no difference to most people) and the Luftwaffe had ships in the Baltic decked out with big AA guns and radar. So occasions when you were being attacked by Luftwaffe tanks and ships did occur.
568.82 quiz takers missed Question #1