a) I hypothesize that the Battle of the Atlantic would become the longest and one of the most important campaigns of the Second World War, as a cause of the restricted land the allies had since much of it had been taken over by the axis, and the support they would receive from North America had been vital. Also, the campaign would have been the longest since many convoys carrying essential supplies including munition, food, and resources had been dispatched from that region in order to supply the war effort with supplies essential for their success, with the German U-boats being the blockade for the arrival of these supplies.
b) I developed this hypothesis by analyzing a map of the Battle of the Atlantic. It had shown that the main hubs for …show more content…
The importance of December 7, 1941 or the “attack on Pearl Harbor” towards the course of the second world war had been the naval attacks undergone by the U.S and the involvement of a the U.S nation capable of mass producing weapons that had surely impacted the war effort, more positively for the allies. This implies that when the United States’ main naval base had been weakened the naval support had decreased. This had mainly impacted the naval supply lines since most of the supply line convoys had been heavily guarded by U.S naval combatants to protect the convoys from German U-boats sinking them and ensuring their safe arrival and supply towards the war effort collectively. Seemingly, the impartiality of the naval combatants had affected the course of the war all together since it had slowed down the supply lines going towards the war effort, weakening the allies and disrupting their ability to combat the axis. On the other hand, the joining of the U.S had certainly changed the course of WW2 as the U.S had been the number producer and supplier of munition at the time, and would have certainly aided the allies much more positively, and had been the reason why the second world war had not prolonged for a longer period of …show more content…
3. Had there been any chances for the soldiers to return to the safety of a homeland, in the case they were severely hurt?
I would ask this question, because it will allow me to further understand how injured soldiers were treated and used, regarding their safety and viability during the attack.
4. What kind of conditions did the soldiers sever in, during the attack?
This would allow me to better understand how the soldiers had rationed their supplies, dealt with different scenarios, and how they would have been capable of deducing rest in order to continue fighting, without risking frontal attack.
5. Is there anyway my family member is able to withdraw from the attack, and being reassigned to a different sector?
Being someone who loves and cares for one of the persons going to the attack, their safety is my number one concern. Through this, any way of reverting them out of the battle zone would have been an exemplary thought for both myself and the soldier, unless he was
b) I developed this hypothesis by analyzing a map of the Battle of the Atlantic. It had shown that the main hubs for …show more content…
The importance of December 7, 1941 or the “attack on Pearl Harbor” towards the course of the second world war had been the naval attacks undergone by the U.S and the involvement of a the U.S nation capable of mass producing weapons that had surely impacted the war effort, more positively for the allies. This implies that when the United States’ main naval base had been weakened the naval support had decreased. This had mainly impacted the naval supply lines since most of the supply line convoys had been heavily guarded by U.S naval combatants to protect the convoys from German U-boats sinking them and ensuring their safe arrival and supply towards the war effort collectively. Seemingly, the impartiality of the naval combatants had affected the course of the war all together since it had slowed down the supply lines going towards the war effort, weakening the allies and disrupting their ability to combat the axis. On the other hand, the joining of the U.S had certainly changed the course of WW2 as the U.S had been the number producer and supplier of munition at the time, and would have certainly aided the allies much more positively, and had been the reason why the second world war had not prolonged for a longer period of …show more content…
3. Had there been any chances for the soldiers to return to the safety of a homeland, in the case they were severely hurt?
I would ask this question, because it will allow me to further understand how injured soldiers were treated and used, regarding their safety and viability during the attack.
4. What kind of conditions did the soldiers sever in, during the attack?
This would allow me to better understand how the soldiers had rationed their supplies, dealt with different scenarios, and how they would have been capable of deducing rest in order to continue fighting, without risking frontal attack.
5. Is there anyway my family member is able to withdraw from the attack, and being reassigned to a different sector?
Being someone who loves and cares for one of the persons going to the attack, their safety is my number one concern. Through this, any way of reverting them out of the battle zone would have been an exemplary thought for both myself and the soldier, unless he was