As a result of close ties established by US President Franklin Roosevelt and Australian Prime Minister John Curtin during WWII, the United States and Australia formed an alliance. This alliance remains in place to this day and has since expanded with the creation of AUKUS. This has led to the misconception that Australia is in NATO. While Australia does not have an alliance with any European country, it works closely with NATO member states.

Australia and the Grand Alliance in WWII

When Australia entered WWII on September 3, 1939, it did so because its government hoped to retain close ties with Great Britain and was a Commonwealth country whose head of state in 1939 was King George VI. Its forces went to the Middle East and Greece to fight alongside other British Commonwealth forces. Its leadership also supported British strategic planning in Asia, and sent forces to support the defense of Singapore.

However, the Japanese entry into the war and repeated British defeats in Asia led Canberra to question London’s utility as an ally. Winston Churchill viewed Australia through a colonial lens and thought he could order their forces around. By early 1942, Prime Minister John Curtin ordered most of the Australian army fighting in North Africa to return home. Churchill begged Curtin to keep his forces in North Africa, but Curtin feared a Japanese invasion and redeployed his military resources accordingly. He had the support of the United States, which saw Australia as a bulwark against Japan.

For the rest of the war, the Americans and Australians worked together to chip away at Japanese control of the Pacific. While some Australian commandos, ships, and pilots stayed in Europe, the majority of the country’s war effort was directed at defeating the Japanese military. Even though the Americans left the Australians to conduct operations of lesser importance, they still played a major role until the end of the war. The close ties between Washington and Canberra during the war assisted in the creation of a formal alliance after the war.

The Creation of NATO and SEATO

As part of an effort to create a new alliance aimed at rebuilding Western Europe and deterring the Soviet Union, France, Britain, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg signed the Brussels Treaty of 1948. This was a new collective security arrangement but it was too weak without American backing. Despite opposition from Republicans focused on Asia affairs, the Truman administration gained enough support to enter the alliance. The North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 established the US-led alliance that would dominate transatlantic relations for generations to come.

Initially composed of the United States, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and the United Kingdom, NATO accepted Greece and Turkey in 1952, West Germany in 1955, and most Eastern European states after the end of the Cold War. On paper, NATO’s primary focus was on Europe, but the organization established ties with strategic partners countries around the world. It became the world’s most powerful alliance and countered the USSR and the communist states in Eastern Europe.

Alongside NATO, American policymakers formed the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization with its allies in the Indo-Pacific region. In February 1955, Thailand hosted a conference in Bangkok officially creating SEATO. It was composed of the United States, France, Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia, the Philippines, Thailand and Pakistan. While the US government considered SEATO a vital component of its policy to contain communism was part of the justification for American involvement in Vietnam, it had few formal military functions beyond joint exercises and dissolved in 1977.

The Creation of ANZUS

Before Australia joined SEATO in 1955, it signed a treaty with New Zealand and the United States to counter the spread of communism in the Pacific. The ANZUS Treaty marked the first time that Australia was formally tied to the United States in security matters. Canberra feared that they could not stand up to the communists alone and believed that European countries were too weak. Australian leaders also made it clear that they would only support the rearmament of Japan if they were given a security guarantee by the US.

After several rounds of negotiations, US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles signed the treaty at a summit in San Francisco with the Australian and New Zealand ambassadors. The British were upset that they hadn’t been included in the talks, but Robert Menzies’ government believed that Britain’s power in the Pacific was waning. The Australians saw America as the new hegemon and sought to strengthen ties with Washington instead of London.

While the treaty did not have a collective defense clause similar to NATO’s Article V, it did ensure close security and intelligence cooperation between the member states. Australia’s large intelligence community proved to be an effective partner of the CIA and FBI. American bases remained in Australia after their establishment in WWII as part of the treaty. Canberra also agreed to keep some forces in Japan as part of the postwar occupation force. While New Zealand withdrew from the treaty in the 1980s, the agreement remains the basis for the security relationship between the United States and Australia.

Australia and NATO in Vietnam

When American forces first started getting seriously involved in combat in Vietnam, it looked for support from its allies across the world. While the United States had the support of most NATO members in the Korean War, the Vietnam War had few supporters outside Washington. France did not want to reenter the country after its failure to reestablish colonial rule in the First Indochinese War of 1945-1954. Other NATO members were tied up with obligations closer to home. NATO’s leadership feared enmeshing itself in the growing quagmire that Vietnam was proving to be for American forces.

The Australian government under Robert Menzies and his successor, Harold Holt, rallied to the American cause. Starting in 1962, Australia and New Zealand began deploying forces to South Vietnam. They aimed to train South Vietnamese forces and began to fight alongside them. With prior experience in fighting in the jungles of Malaysia and Borneo, Australian forces proved to be effective allies to the Americans. Notwithstanding the war becoming more unpopular in Australia, Holt’s government doubled down and committed more troops. Even after his disappearance and death, Australian forces continued to fight in Vietnam.

Once it became clear the American-led coalition could not win, Australia decided to begin scaling down military operations in the country. Prime Minister Gough Whitlam was skeptical of American goals in the region and began to align his country more closely with European NATO members.

The Development of Australia’s Relationship With NATO Over Time

Notwithstanding policy differences that existed between Australia’s leadership and NATO, the country has grown very close with the alliance and many of its members. Thanks to Australia’s heavily Anglophone diaspora population, it remained closely aligned to North America and Western Europe. Australia’s military was armed and trained to NATO’s standards from the moment NATO created its joint military apparatus. Its intelligence community established ties with NATO intelligence agencies. Canberra knew that in order to defend its territory, it needed to maintain ties with a number of NATO member states beyond just the Americans.

After Australia’s pivot to focus on Asian affairs, it did not initially support NATO’s defense plans in Europe. Successive governments in Canberra thought that communism in Asia posed a greater threat than communism in Europe. However, both Labor and Liberal governments agreed to maintain ties with European NATO members in defense and intelligence fields for security purposes. When Australia sent forces to Korea, it attached them to a British-led force. It also purchased a lot of equipment from European arms manufacturers.

During the 1950s, Australia agreed to allow Britain to test nuclear weapons in the Outback since there were no suitable test sites in the United Kingdom. Starting in 1952, the UK tested a bomb in Maralinga and began testing more of them. As time went on, the UK’s bomb tests grew bigger. While Australia did not obtain any nuclear weapons of its own, it did join research with British scientists on nuclear blasts. This ended in 1963 when the UK suspended its tests.

Australia and NATO in the 21st century

In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, Australia’s ties with NATO became much closer. In addition to its commitment to the ANZUS Treaty, Australia feared that Islamist terror movements could start attacking Australasian targets. Canberra began to deploy special forces teams to Afghanistan following NATO’s invasion of the country and the toppling of the Taliban. Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan lasted until the final withdrawal of Coalition forces in 2021. Its involvement in the Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance expanded to include counterterrorism intelligence sharing.

In 2013, Australia joined the Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme. Its navy and air force increased its involvement in NATO task forces when operating in the Indian Ocean or the Mediterranean. While it does not have a formal defensive alliance with most NATO members except the US, its partnerships with NATO ensures that, in the event of a major security threat, the alliance will be there to help them.

In 2021, Australia signed a new agreement with the US and Britain that fundamentally altered its relationship with the West. The AUKUS deal, signed by President Joe Biden, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison. The provisions involved a new nuclear submarine program for Australia, repudiating an existing deal with France. Nevertheless, the treaty demonstrated Australia’s willingness to work with other NATO members to strengthen its military capacity. It also showed NATO’s increasing interest in Asia affairs. Australia has proven over the past years to be in a hybrid relationship with NATO: a key partner of the organization but not a full member.

American forces in the two world wars often relied on heavy firepower to force their way through enemy lines. Yet, their rifles were just as crucial to their survival. Going from slow, bolt-action rifles like the Springfield or the Lee-Enfield to the M1 Garand or M1 Carbine, American riflemen became more effective as they gained access to better rifles in battle.

1. M1903 Springfield

After the Spanish-American War ended, a US Army investigative panel urged the government to start issuing soldiers with a more advanced rifle than the Springfield 1892 Krag–Jørgensen. By 1903, Springfield Armory came up with the first bolt-action rifle that would become standard issue for the US military until 1936. It was modeled after the German K98 Mauser and the Springfield Krag–Jørgensen rifles.

The M1903 Springfield rifle used a .30 caliber round with a lot of penetrating power. Each rifle could fit a clip of 5 rounds at a time. It had to be redesigned in 1905 because Springfield developed a bayonet specifically for use on the M1903. Owing to America’s sizable rifle production capacity, tens of thousands of M1903s were available within two years. The rifle would be adapted to fit scopes for use as a sniper rifle. All the major branches of the U.S. military started to use the rifle by the time World War I broke out.

In 1916, the US Army under General John J. Pershing entered Mexico in force to hunt down the warlord Pancho Villa. The American soldiers carried M1903s as their main weapon, and it quickly received a positive reception. In WWI, Springfield made some upgrades to the rifle by changing the bullet that was used. Even after its replacement in 1936, it was still used extensively, either as a sniper rifle or as an honor guard weapon. From 1903 to 1949, over three million units of the M1903 were produced at Springfield’s armory, either for use by the US military, for sale to other countries, or for public use as a hunting rifle.

2. M1917 Enfield

To complement the M1903, Remington and Winchester began producing the M1917 rifle, also known as the American Enfield. During the war, Britain was in desperate need of more rifles for its troops. London hoped that American companies could produce a rifle similar to the Small Magazine Lee-Enfield (SMLE) in use by British forces. Remington and Winchester agreed, hoping to turn a profit and get the attention of the US military.

The M1917 could use both the .303 caliber round used by the SMLE or the .30 caliber Springfield. It proved to be so popular that it actually became the main rifle of choice for much of the US Army in Europe in 1918. Like the M1903, it fit five-round clips, although it could fire a little faster. Its range, over 550 yards, was similar to the M1903, however, it was not modified for use by sniper units. Remington and Winchester also invented a specific blade for use as a bayonet on the M1917. Both companies had many factories to produce the M1917, meaning that it rivaled the M1903 in quantity produced.

By 1918, many American soldiers decided to use the M1917 because of its handiness and ability to fire rapidly. The famed Sergeant Alvin York used one during his well-known charge towards German positions in the Meuse-Argonne forest. However, it was put aside in favor of the M1903 after the war finished, with only a couple of mortar battalions retaining them. Between 1917 to 1919, around 2,200,000 were produced, a major feat by Winchester and Remington.

3. M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle

The Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR), designed by John Moses Browning in 1917, was developed in response to the trench warfare stalemate of World War I. Modeled after the Lewis Gun, the BAR was chambered in .30 caliber Springfield and featured a 20-round detachable box magazine. It could fire in both semi-automatic and fully automatic modes, with a rate of fire of up to 650 rounds per minute. The weapon was quickly adopted by the US Army and first saw combat in the closing months of World War I, becoming the first automatic rifle used by the American military in its history.

During the interwar years, the BAR underwent modifications, resulting in the M1918A2 variant employed extensively during World War II and the Korean War. It became a core component of US infantry squads, valued for its portability and firepower. However, its relatively low magazine capacity and heavy weight limited its long-term effectiveness. Many American GIs and Marines used it as a fire-suppression weapon but did not mount it to a bipod like they did with light machine guns.

The BAR saw service again during the early stages of the Vietnam War, though it was gradually phased out over time. Over its 55-year period of use, 350,000 were produced by Browning. It was extensively used by American forces during both world wars and by other friendly nations such as the South Korean Army.

4. M1941 Johnson Rifle

By the 1930s, American arms manufacturers were being asked by the military to produce semi-automatic rifles that could replace the bolt action rifles then in use. The aim was to provide American forces with a weapon that had a higher rate of firepower. American Marine officer and lawyer Melville Johnson wanted to create a weapon that rivaled the M1 Garand going into production and created a rifle with a ten-round rotary magazine that fit two five-round clips at a time. The rifle was relatively short and fit a .30 caliber round similar to prior American rifles.

However, the M1941 Johnson had a reputation for low reliability and was not in favor among American infantry. Its short barrel and complex design meant that it was inaccurate and could fall apart easily when stripped down. As a result, the Johnson never gained the fame of the Garand and was not mass-produced. Some Marine units used it in the Pacific War but it did not see much combat except for some early battles in the Pacific.

The US government hoped to sell some of the Johnson rifles it had to partner forces of the United States. For instance, the Dutch garrison in Indonesia equipped some of its infantry units with them. Chile placed an order for thousands of them in 1940 in case of a war with Bolivia. However, the failure of Johnson Manufacturing to turn a profit meant that the company filed for bankruptcy, stopping any rifle production. A mere 20,000 were produced before the company shut down.

5. M1 Garand

When Canadian-American rifle designer John Garand first created the T1E2 rifle, later the M1, he became one of the most influential arms inventors in American history. The M1 became the first semi-automatic rifle to be produced for the American military en masse. Thanks to its versatility and rate of fire, it became a very popular weapon among American servicemen during and after the Second World War. Over five million M1s were produced by Springfield, Winchester, and other companies from 1934 to 1957. Its features were so well-regarded that Soviet weapons designer Mikhail Kalashnikov based the AK-47 on the internal design of the M1.

The M1 fired a .30 caliber round in clips of eight. Once a rifle expended all of its ammunition, the clip popped out automatically and made a ping sound. Its barrel was designed to fit several different types of bayonets and even could fit a grenade launcher. Some models produced included scopes to enable their use as a sniper rifle. Because they did not require too many spare parts, they were prized for their reliability. Most riflemen in each squad carried an M1, allowing American forces to lay down a very rapid rate of fire.

John Garand sold the patent rights of the M1 in 1936, meaning that he never made a dime from the sale of this weapon. In 1965, the M14 took its place as the main American battle rifle, although it remained in use for decades later as a ceremonial weapon. Its widespread use by American servicemen made it one of the most well-known rifles of any army in the Second World War.

6. M1 Carbine

The M1 Carbine was developed just before the United States entered World War II to address a key need: providing rear-echelon and support troops with a weapon more powerful than a pistol but lighter than the M1 Garand. The US Army Ordinance Board wanted to equip its riflemen with a weapon of this description that ensured a high rate of fire. Adopted in 1941, the carbine used a .30 caliber cartridge and fed from a 15-round detachable magazine. It was semi-automatic and a light weapon, making it ideal for paratrooper, tanker, and marine units operating in close quarters.

Though it was never intended as a frontline combat rifle, the M1 Carbine was quickly adopted in virtually every theater of the war. Its light recoil and easy usability made it especially appealing for troops with limited infantry experience. By war’s end, over six million M1 Carbines had been produced by contractors including Inland, Winchester, and IBM, making it the most mass-produced US firearm of World War II.

The M1 Carbine proved highly effective in the Pacific, where close-quarters jungle fighting was common. Specialized variants were created, such as the M1A1 with a folding stock for airborne units and the M3, equipped with an infrared scope for night fighting. Despite some concerns about its stopping power, the M1 Carbine earned a strong reputation for reliability and versatility. It remains one of the most iconic small arms of World War II and a symbol of the US military’s adaptability during the conflict.

Dwight D. Eisenhower is one of the most illustrious figures of the 20th century. While largely remembered for his role in leading the successful Allied invasion of Normandy on D-Day, Eisenhower’s contributions to the United States extend well beyond his military career. Among many notable post-war achievements, President “Ike” oversaw the advancement of the Civil Rights Movement, end of the Korean War, and the creation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), cementing his legacy in modern American history for decades to come.

Early Life and Military Career

While destined for military and political greatness, Dwight D. Eisenhower’s early life was marked by humble beginnings. Born on October 14, 1890, in Texas, the future president was the third of seven children in a modest family from rural Kansas. During his childhood, Eisenhower exhibited a strong work ethic as a student-athlete, gaining acceptance to one of the country’s most prestigious educational institutions: the United States Military Academy at West Point. There, Eisenhower was just one steward of military excellence among many. His graduating class, the class of 1915, would eventually become known as “the class the stars fell on” due to the 59 generals of the group including Omar Bradley, James Van Fleet, and Joseph T. McNarney.

Eisenhower’s rise to the Supreme Commander of Allied Expeditionary Forces in Europe, however, was not easy. Although he hoped for a combat role overseas during World War I just two years after receiving his commission, Eisenhower stayed stateside to train tank crews headed to Europe. In the two decades leading up to World War II, Eisenhower demonstrated his abilities as a capable leader under some of the most influential American military leaders of the 20th century including John J. Pershing and Douglas MacArthur. After several command, staff, and training positions, including service in the Philippines and Panama Canal Zone, Eisenhower’s 25 years of experience thoroughly prepared him for the significant challenges that lay ahead in the Second World War.

World War II Leadership

As the Pearl Harbor attacks led the United States to join the Allied Powers in World War II, Eisenhower served in the War Plans Division in Washington DC. This unique role allowed Eisenhower to demonstrate his organizational skills and directly shape overseas military responses alongside General George C. Marshall, then-Army Chief of Staff. By June 1942, Eisenhower was selected as commander of the European Theater of Operations. Just five months later, Eisenhower was additionally appointed commander of Allied Expeditionary Forces of the North African Theater of Operations.

Eisenhower’s new responsibilities enabled him to oversee important Allied missions in North Africa, particularly Operation Torch, the first significant offensive against Axis Powers. While the invasion of North Africa proved ultimately successful, Eisenhower’s troops endured initial defeat at the Battle of Kasserine Pass. Undeterred, Eisenhower rapidly adjusted by increasing coordination with Britain and leaning on the tactical expertise of General George S. Patton, strategic adjustments that led to the German surrender of Tunisia in May 1943.

Now a battle-hardened general, Eisenhower was given the immense responsibility of planning Operation Overlord, the amphibious landing of Allied troops on the Normandy beaches, by President Roosevelt. A challenging feat, efficiently organizing the invasion of Normandy required months of careful logistical groundwork, operational coordination between several Allied armies, and efforts to conceal the intended landing targets. Come D-Day, however, Eisenhower’s direction of 160,000 troops across five beaches proved successful, leading to the liberation of Western Europe and eventual victory over the Axis Powers by May 1945.

Presidential Campaign and Election

Eisenhower’s military fame enabled his rise to the American presidency, but immediately following World War II, the commander continued his military service. As a five-star general, Eisenhower was installed as the United States Army’s Chief of Staff before acting as the first Supreme Commander of the newly established North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Outside of the military, Eisenhower served as the president of Columbia University until he took office as the nation’s 34th president and commander-in-chief.

Due to his irreplaceable role in securing Allied victory during World War II, both the Democratic and Republican parties invited Eisenhower to run for president. Aligning more with conservative visions of national security, especially considering the rise of global communism, Eisenhower ran on the Republican ticket as a moderate candidate in the 1952 election.

While the former commander had no political experience, the public was quick to endorse Eisenhower. His campaign creatively coined the slogan “I like Ike,” one of the most memorable mottos of modern American political history, to capture Eisenhower’s widespread appeal and effective leadership. Combined with an extensive television advertising campaign, one of the first in presidential history, Eisenhower chose the up-and-coming Richard Nixon of California as his running mate. The pair won a landslide victory against Democrat Adlai Stevenson II in the November election. Although the country was determined to enjoy a peaceful rebound from the Second World War, Eisenhower faced a number of domestic and international challenges during his presidency.

Domestic Policies and Achievements

The political climate of the 1950s demanded Eisenhower’s attention to deep-running domestic issues. The Civil Rights Movement gained momentum in the postwar era, partly due to the courageous service of African American troops overseas. Eisenhower’s civil rights legacy is controversial, but he took tangible steps towards ending racial segregation. In addition to signing the Civil Rights Act of 1957 to protect universal voting rights, Ike federalized National Guard troops and mobilized active-duty units to Little Rock, Arkansas, to mandate the desegregation of Central High School in 1957, protecting the Little Rock Nine and marking a key step forward in racial progress following the landmark Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court ruling in 1954.

Economically, Eisenhower focused on preserving balanced spending and reducing government waste. One of his most significant accomplishments, however, was the creation of America’s Interstate Highway System via the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. Improving transnational infrastructure drastically improved internal transportation and trade within the United States.

Other Eisenhower policies reached millions of Americans. He expanded social security benefits to traditionally overlooked populations including self-employed workers and farmers. Academically, Eisenhower increased spending on science, mathematics, technology, and language programs in schools. While this initiative was a part of a deliberate, long-term plan to counter Soviet competition during the Cold War, these measures enabled the United States to become a world-leading educational power in the 1950s and beyond.

Foreign Policy and the Cold War

Shortly after taking office, Eisenhower negotiated a successful armistice to end the Korean War, creating the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea that still exists today. Eisenhower took a number of foreign policy initiatives during the early Cold War to counter Soviet influence. For example, the Soviet Union’s 1957 launch of Sputnik led the President to develop American capabilities by creating NASA and passing the National Defense Education Act. Three years later, tensions escalated to new heights. The 1960 U-2 spy plane incident riled the two superpowers after the American surveillance aircraft was shot down over Soviet airspace, interrupting plans for a summit meeting between Eisenhower and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev.

As a former NATO supreme commander, Eisenhower’s foreign policy involved the creation of other multilateral defense agreements including the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and the Baghdad Pact. Simultaneous to the Cold War, Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” agenda aimed to reduce the threat of nuclear conflict by supporting programs to research civilian applications of nuclear power.

While outwardly unifying, it is worth noting that behind the scenes, Eisenhower empowered covert intelligence agencies to protect national security and interests despite risks to other nations. The Central Intelligence Agency’s involvement in toppling Iranian and Guatemalan leaders during the 1950s, for instance, adds a controversial element to his otherwise positive legacy.

Legacy and Impact

Today, Eisenhower’s legacy is largely positive. As one of the United States’ most influential leaders of the 20th century, Eisenhower played a significant role in the US military and political stage, and also had a major impact on American society as a whole.

Militarily, Eisenhower stands alongside the most significant Allied generals of World War II including Douglas MacArthur, Bernard Montgomery, and George S. Patton. His leadership helped the Allies overcome significant operational and strategic challenges presented by the Axis Powers. Victory in North Africa and Europe, particularly during the climatic D-Day offensive, enabled ultimate Allied victory in the conflict. A Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, continues the former president’s legacy.

After the war, Eisenhower’s policies as president brought social progress to marginalized populations, disrupted existential threats presented by the Soviet Union and communism, helped galvanize NATO’s early activities, and championed new technological and infrastructure development.

As with most historical figures, Eisenhower’s legacy is not without controversy. Critics highlight his overly cautious approach to the Civil Rights Movement, his authorization of clandestine espionage operations, and the unintended escalation of the nuclear arms race. While these criticisms are justified, Eisenhower’s contributions to World War II and the United States solidify his place as a hero of modern American history.

For thousands of years, cavalry dominated battlefields through speed, shock power, and mobility. Before there were tanks and aircraft, mounted warriors were often the deciding factor in military engagements. Wars and battles could be determined by a single dramatic charge or outflanking maneuver by men on horseback. Certain cavalry units became legendary not only for their battlefield success but for their discipline, tactics, and impact. From the Eurasian Steppe to Napoleonic Europe, these six cavalry forces stand above all others in their military impact and enduring reputation.

1. Mongol Horsemen: The Storm from the Steppes

No other cavalry force was more feared, disciplined, and successful than the vast hordes of horseman employed by the Mongols throughout their conquests. Born into a nomadic system with one of the oldest equine cultures on earth, Mongols honed their skills in horseback riding and archery from the time they could walk. The Mongols valued and took great care of their robust mounts, with each warrior usually equipped with four to six. Owning several horses endowed the Mongols with their quintessential advantage in mobility, often riding multiple horses over vast distances to sustain their steeds’ health and fighting ability.

Mongolian horses tend to be smaller but uniquely hardy. They could survive in both extreme heat and cold and in addition to being highly intelligent displayed incredible loyalty to their riders. On horseback Mongols could travel between 60 and 100 miles a day, a rate unmatched by any army until the era of mechanization.

The Mongols boasted the largest cavalry forces in history, with as many as 100,000 horsemen serving in the armies of Genghis and Kublai Khan, employing their recurve bows with natural and lethal efficacy. During the first half of the 13th century, the Mongols defeated almost any army they came across. From the Eurasian steppes to Hungary, no military could withstand their rapid conquests. The Mongols favorite tactic was the feigned retreat followed by encirclement, but they would also employ experts in siegecraft and amphibious operations.

Employing cunning, discipline, and ruthless annihilation, Mongol cavalry could not be sufficiently deterred as they carved out the largest contiguous land empire in history. Their methods and unmatched equestrianism are still practiced by their descendants in the present day, giving credence to their esteemed legacy.

2. Companion Cavalry: Thunder of Macedonia

Alexander the Great is one of the most important figures in history. He conquered an empire that expanded from the Balkans to modern day Pakistan, contending with and defeating multiple adversaries from vastly different regions and military cultures. Though he utilized a combined arms military with the essential pillar being the infantry phalanx, the senior arm of his army was the cavalry. During his great campaigns, Alexander rode and fought alongside his Hetairoi or Companions, the elite formation composed of Macedonian nobles who trained together since childhood.

In early antiquity, Macedonia was often viewed as a backwater by much of the Greek-speaking world. Yet the region was renowned for its equestrian tradition and enjoyed close ties to Thessaly, famed for its horsemen. Macedonia rose to prominence under Alexander’s father Philip II, who enacted sweeping military reforms with an emphasis on cavalry reorganization. Philip forged a dominant military force that subdued much of Greece. After Philip’s assassination, Alexander inherited this army and wielded it with even greater success during his expeditionary conquest of the Achaemenid Persian Empire.

As units were organized into squadrons of 200 men each, the Companions would consistently fight on the right side of the army, the traditional place of honor. They often attacked in critical situations, effectively tipping the scales of engagements. They would usually charge against the enemy in a wedge formation; the Companions were a highly synchronized force capable of overwhelming mounted and ground troops alike.

Macedonian horses were typically smaller than present-day horses but were incredibly strong, durable, and athletic. The Companions were critical at the Battle of Gaugamela in 331 BC, perhaps Alexander’s most improbable and spectacular victory. Over more than a decade of Alexander’s campaigns, the Companion Cavalry constantly played crucial roles, often against similarly proficient mounted units such as the Scythians and the deadly elephant formations at the Battle of Hydaspes in 326 BC. Alexander’s battlefield triumphs would not have been possible without his loyal and select cadre of aristocratic horsemen.

3. Cataphracts: Juggernauts of the Near East

Ancient Persia established an early precedent for elite cavalry forces. The Persians, particularly the Parthian Empire, mastered light horse tactics and mounted archery, employing them with devastating effect against the Romans at the Battle of Carrhae in 53 BC. Cavalry warfare evolved over the following centuries, culminating in the adaptation of heavily armored cavalry known as Cataphracts. The term “Cataphract,” derived from Greek kataphraktos, means fully armored or enveloped, referring to the extensive armor worn by horse and rider alike.

The overlapping metal plates were both highly protective and culturally distinct. Cataphracts were equipped with an extra-long lance as well as a sword. These armored horsemen could demolish enemy formations with the efficiency of a battering ram. They would likewise work in conjunction with light cavalry who often would shower their adversaries in a torrent of arrows. This combined arms equestrian-oriented approach to warfare sustained the Parthians as a regional superpower, as they contended with numerous enemies and permanently thwarted Roman expansion eastward.

Cataphracts were so successful that their style of warfare would be adopted and modified by their successors, the Sassanians, and even their adversaries such as the Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire. The heavily armored prototype was the precursor to the European knight. Although Persia went through multiple dynastic changes during antiquity and the early medieval period, consistent use of Cataphracts in their armies was a major force multiplier in helping them dominate the Near East for centuries.

4. Polish Winged Hussars: The Wings of War

Combining elements of Eastern and Western influence, the Polish Winged Hussars attained great renown as one of the most remarkable military formations of early modern Europe.

Unlike the more urbanized states of Western Europe, Eastern Europe long maintained a strong equestrian tradition. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, one of Europe’s leading powers during the 16th to 18th centuries, drew on these traditions while modernizing its military. Recruited largely from nobility, the Winged Hussars were named for their distinctive artificial wings and became one of history’s most cohesive and formidable shock cavalry units.

The Winged Hussars rode expertly bred war horses that were often Polish-Arabian hybrids. The aristocratic riders furnished their mounts and armor at considerable expense. Hussars were clad in heavy steel armor typical of the era and often adorned themselves in exotic animal furs while riding on saddles laced with fine silk.

A long lance and curved saber were the most consistent and preferred weapons of the Winged Hussars, but they also carried firearms. As for the Wings themselves, both eagle and falcon feathers were used and served a dual purpose. They were not only visually threatening to foes, but the din produced by the feathers rubbing against each other during cavalry charges contributed to the shock and awe.

Although the Winged Hussars fought countless battles over many fronts and foes, their greatest moment came at the Siege of Vienna in 1683, when they rode in the vanguard of an immense relief coalition. The 4,000 Winged Hussars led by King John Sobieski spearheaded what may have been the largest cavalry charge in history, crushing the besieging Ottoman forces and saving Vienna in the process.

5. French Cuirassiers: The Backbone of Napoleon’s Cavalry

Cavalry has experienced multiple golden ages over the course of military history, often functioning as the crucial force necessary for victory on the battlefield. The Napoleonic Wars was one of the last periods this would be apparent, and no cavalry unit represented the elan and prestige of Napoleon’s Grand Armée more than the Cuirassiers.

France has enjoyed a long history as a premier horse breeding location. The French, like most conventional European armies of the period, employed a variety of cavalry typically classified into light and heavy units with versatile but differing purposes. Cuirassiers were heavy cavalry named after their breastplates or cuirasses. They rode larger horses and wielded straight sabers with carbines and pistols as sidearms. They sported helmets made of steel and brass with distinctive horsehair plumes.

Napoleon’s cuirassiers were among the most formidable and visually striking forces on Europe’s battlefields. Through superior organization, morale, and tactics they achieved notable success during the battles of Austerlitz and Eylau, where thousands of horsemen under Marshal Joachim Murat charged through the snow. The large number of horses Napoleon lost during his disastrous Russian campaign of 1812 was one of the major factors in his inability to fight effectively against the armies of the Sixth Coalition. At the Battle of Waterloo in 1815, the Cuirassiers were cut down while assaulting organized British infantry squares.

Though the importance of cavalry declined as warfare became increasingly mechanized, the French Army retained the 12th Cuirassier Regiment as a tank unit, which maintained its legacy for speed and boldness during the Second World War.

6. Comanche Warriors: The Scourge of the Southern Plains

The Great Plains of North America were once dominated by a litany of mounted warrior cultures, but none were more imposing nor feared than the Comanche of the Southern Plains. Originally related to the Shoshone, the Comanche gradually migrated southward from the Great Basin into modern day Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Colorado. One impetus for this migration was the availability of horses which were introduced by the Spaniards who had utilized them with great effect in their conquest of the New World.

In a remarkably short time, horses transformed plains society and culture. The Comanche were among the tribes that mastered horsemanship, using their mobility to follow buffalo herds and conduct raids against rival tribes. Horses became central to Comanche life, symbolizing wealth and status and both men and women learned to ride from an early age. The Comanche fought numerous enemies including the Apache, Mexicans, Texans and the United States Army. Their raids covered vast distances, often striking settlements with sudden and overwhelming force.

Comanche warriors utilized a variety of weapons, from traditional bows to long spears and eventually firearms. The Comanche were masters at sowing confusion and simply outmaneuvering their adversaries. They rode swift agile mounts which were selectively bred and retained in great quantities. Through sheer brutality and military prowess, the Comanche resisted US encroachment for much longer than most other tribes. But they could not halt the inevitable forever.

As the United States expanded further west, the US Army dealt the Comanche a crushing defeat through relentless campaigning and scorched-earth destruction of their horse herds. Although the Comanche survived, they witnessed their culture forever transformed by the reservation system and population decline. To this day, no Native tribe better embodies the spirit of resistance, horsemanship, and lethality than the Comanche.

Japan’s unconditional surrender on September 2, 1945, only ended the armed conflict. The legal state of war ended only with Japan’s signature on the Treaty. The years that followed were marked by the Allied Occupation (primarily American), the loss of self-government, and economic and political reform. The Treaty, signed on September 8, 1951, not only legally ended hostilities but also terminated the Occupation and restored self-rule. The Treaty took effect on April 28, 1952.

While signed and ratified, certain conditions still applied. Treaty requirements meant Japan gave up all territorial claims (including Korea, Taiwan, the Kurile Islands, and others). Two others were the recognition of the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal and the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty. This last part allowed American bases in Japan, reflecting Cold War concerns as time went on.

From Defeat to Reform

With Japan’s surrender, intense scrutiny of the Imperial government followed. The Occupation (1945-1952) had two overriding goals: demilitarization and democratization. Dismantling Japan’s military and associated industries came first. Next came the removal of hardliners and militarists from public life. Democratization started with a 1947 constitution, land and economic reform, and expanded civil liberties. Economic reforms meant rebuilding infrastructure and factories.

The political reshaping coincided with the Cold War’s ramp-up, the Communist victory in China, and the Korean march to war all by 1950. As such, America needed a stable, economically strong Japan as a partner and as a base for its Asian presence. The 1951 bilateral security treaty allowed the American military to operate freely. 

Convening in San Francisco, 1951

On April 28, 1952, Japan regained its sovereignty. The negotiations took place seven months earlier, in September 1951. Here, delegations from 49 nations met to formally end World War II. Besides the Allied powers, others came from the Middle East and South America. However, neither China nor Korea had representation. Regarding China, Britain and the U.S. couldn’t decide if Nationalist China (Taiwan) or Communist China (Beijing) was the legitimate nation. Korea, divided into two opposing governments, was left out for this reason.

The Treaty negotiations reflected the Cold War reality of the era. The U.S., wary of Cold War tensions, pushed for a moderate treaty to reinstate Japan’s sovereignty. This would make Japan pro-Western. The Soviet Union refused to sign, stating that the Treaty was not harsh enough and only favored American goals. Others, such as India and Yugoslavia, objected, claiming American favoritism and a lack of neutrality in the Treaty.

For all, the treaty required a delicate balance of justice and accountability for Japan’s actions.

Sovereignty and The San Francisco System

The Treaty of San Francisco’s provisions fully restored Japan’s sovereignty, but with conditions. First, the Treaty ended the Occupation. In addition to the aforementioned territorial and accountability conditions, the Treaty required reparation payments to victims and Allied countries. 

Strategically, the Treaty established the San Francisco System. Paired with the 1951 U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, Japan became a concrete part of America’s Pacific strategy. While key, Japan’s military role remained limited. With sovereignty restored under a U.S. security umbrella, Japan’s economic recovery sped up. Political re-establishment meant focus now turned to Japan’s long-term plans, not ones benefiting the Occupation. 

Japan’s Economic Miracle

With the Treaty now in force, Japan regained access to important markets, primarily in Europe and the Americas. The government joined international organizations (i.e., the World Bank) and negotiated commercial treaties. Japan imported industrial machinery, modernizing its industry. Partnering with foreign companies brought in knowledge and technology transfers, providing a further economic boost. 

Japan utilized its well-educated population, low-interest loans plus import controls. With little money required for defense, funds went to steel, automobiles, or electronics; products made famous within a few short decades. These industries would pay high returns, much to Japan’s benefit. The government synchronized its industrial policy. This led to one of the world’s fastest industrial expansions.

The coordination of policy in the late 1950s and early 1960s produced an annual GDP growth rate of 8-10%. Japan’s industrial fame rose on the strength of its steel, shipbuilding, automotive, and electronics industries. Rising exports propelled Japan into the G7 by 1975.

Japan’s aggressive role in World War II can’t be denied. The only gain won was near ruination, occupation, and humiliation. The 1952 Treaty of San Francisco reversed all that, albeit with some grace from the world. With sovereignty restored, Japan’s real growth began.

The sword is the quintessential item in a premodern warrior’s kit, at least as far as pop culture is concerned. It is a dedicated weapon of war and steeped in symbolism. As such, it is only natural that it comes to mind for most people.

Many of the stories told about premodern warfare, like the Icelandic sagas, emphasize the use of the sword in an effort to highlight battlefield valor; they also can be said to sanitize much of the chaotic nature of battle. The reality of warfare was brutal and practical, calling for a simpler weapon: the polearm.

Whether it was the Greek dory, the Japanese naginata, or the English billhook, the use of a long hafted implement rather than a sword was far more common to soldiers of yore for several important reasons.

Logistics

No matter how well an army is trained or how high its troops’ morale, its ultimate limit to effectiveness is how well it can be supplied. Compared to a sword’s blade, even a short one, a spearhead or axehead takes far less metal to make, and when these items have to be crafted en masse to equip an army, that adds up. For example, the blade of an arming sword (Oakeshott type X-XII) might weigh 0.5 kg, whereas a spearhead could weigh a quarter of that or even less.

Making a sword’s blade takes longer than it does to make a spearhead, and it takes a lot more skill to do so. To make a full-length sword out of a billet of iron or steel, it has to be heated, flattened, and sometimes folded upon itself and reshaped if there are impurities in the metal. Shaping the blade, especially with hand tools, could take weeks, not including the time spent sharpening it.

It also takes far less time to teach someone to use a spear or similar hafted weapon than it does to teach them how to swing and use a sword properly. For spears, the most basic action is to point the tip at the enemy and stab; the basics of doing that could be taught to recruits in a matter of days. Such quick training enabled the drafting of combat-capable (in the loosest sense of the word) peasant levies that could be called upon to bolster a medieval army’s numbers.

Size and Range

Hafted weapons are longer than swords, enabling a spearman or halberdier to keep a swordsman away from him. The extra length of the polearm can provide a psychological advantage; even if the attacker is armed the same way, the sheer size of the weapon is likely to make even the most battle-hardened warrior think twice about closing the distance.

With that increased size also comes increased mass and kinetic energy when the polearm is in full swing. Surviving accounts of medieval warfare from knights describe the terrifying experience of facing a polearm.

Versatility

The entire haft of a polearm is a grippable surface, whereas a sword hilt is only long enough for two hands with a bit of space. The fighter could, therefore, alter the effective length to adjust for close-range fighting. They could keep their foe at the maximum distance possible, or anywhere in between by loosening one hand on the haft and sliding it forward or backward with the other hand. Altering the hand orientation between a thumbs-facing and thumbs-aligned grip affected leverage, point control, and range.

Lighter spears could be used one-handed and paired with a shield. During the Early Medieval Period, the spear-shield combination was the preferred choice for most infantry who were accustomed to fighting against lightly-armored foes. Shields offered some protection against arrows.

The spear, while effective for most of history, did not keep up with armor development. Starting around the 14th century, fully-articulated plate became prevalent, making shields redundant. Eventually, fighters took to using a host of different polearms that incorporated axeheads, hammers, and heavy blades. These gradually supplanted the basic spear because of the increased versatility of tactics that could be brought to bear.

Formation Tactics

In the context of medieval warfare, most of the time, fighting in a formation provided an invaluable psychological advantage over fighting singly. Soldiers would be encouraged by the presence of their comrades nearby. The Spartan phalanx, which is one of the most well-known formations in history, worked by using overlapped shields and a wall of spears, which enemies could not penetrate easily.

Another polearm-based military formation was the pike block, made famous by the Swiss. The first several ranks of soldiers would have pikes pointed forward to create a dense wall of points; any subsequent ranks would have their pikes held diagonally, which would make it easier for them to lower and replace the numbers of any fallen in front.

The schiltron of Scottish warfare was also popular, consisting of troops who were arranged in a circle to protect themselves from all sides.

Polearms as Anti-Armor Tools

A hafted weapon was more than just a bludgeoning or stabbing weapon. It could be used to throw a man to the ground with wrestling-like maneuvers, making it easier to either finish him off or restrain them for later capture  Many manuals that have been recovered, such as Joachim Meyer’s Art of Combat, the anonymous Burgundy text La Jeu de la Hache (The Play of the Axe) or Fiore de’i Liberi’s Fior Battaglia (The Flower of Battle) reference the use of poleaxes, partisans, spears, and other battlefield hafted weapons in this way.

If a fighter were of noble birth, he could reasonably expect to be held for ransom if captured rather than killed outright, especially as the cost of equipping and training a knight rose with the aforementioned advances in armor and weapons. Even kings, if captured, could fall victim to this practice, most famously Austrian duke Leopold V’s capture of Richard I. The King of England was released for 100,000 marks of silver, which is roughly $3 billion in modern money.

Fighting Against Cavalry

There is an enduring image of a rank of spears being braced against an onrushing cavalry charge, thanks to the existence of movies like Braveheart. Even though it and similar movies may be fictional, the idea of hafted weapons being useful against cavalry is historically accurate.

Even well-trained warhorses will not charge headlong into a thicket of spears, which were also long enough to prevent momentum from carrying the horse and rider into the massed ranks of spearmen. After the initial clash, the extra length of the polearm could be used to attack the rider who otherwise would have been out of reach of any foot soldier. The cavalry would veer off and seek the flank of another target.

With training, infantry could also use specially-designed weapons such as the English billhook to pull riders from their mounts. Similar hook spears existed in other cultures; the guisarme pictured above is an example of a French variant of the billhook.

Polearms in Asia

We’ve discussed medieval Europe’s use of polearms. However, they were a universal idea, known in Asian cultures as well. In Chinese military philosophy and martial arts, the spear (qiang) is often called the “king of weapons,” and many techniques involving it were passed down in martial schools of thought, such as Xingyiquan.

The guandao, although called a halberd, is more like a cutting glaive, most famously wielded by the Eastern Han general Guan Yu as his personal weapon. Infantry and cavalry alike were frequently equipped with a similar weapon.

In Japan, the yari and the naginata were staples of premodern warfare. The naginata was the standard infantry weapon during the Heian and Kamakura period, later replaced by the yari as massed formation warfare became more common. The sohei warrior monks also used the naginata.

For the reasons we’ve mentioned, large hafted weapons were some of the most important and influential weapons. They have existed since humanity first sharpened a long stick and took up arms against predators; even if they do not seem as glamorous as swords, their role in war cannot be overstated.

The Holocaust was unique as a genocidal event due to the industrialized nature of the killing. However, it was not unique in that many people denied it even as it was being exposed to the world. The best tool to combat denialism was to air the testimony of survivors who witnessed the terrible atrocities committed by Nazi Germany during World War II. Several survivors became world-famous for their work in exposing the Holocaust’s horrors in the decades after the war.

1. Simon Wiesenthal

Born in 1908 in Austrian-ruled Galicia (in modern-day Ukraine), Simon Wiesenthal was a young German-speaking Austrian architect who studied in Prague before WWII broke out. In 1936, he married Cyla Mueller and opened an architecture firm in the Polish city of Lwów (present-day Lviv, Ukraine). When the Soviets invaded, some of his relatives were deported to Siberia. Subsequently, he was arrested by the Germans during Operation Barbarossa and sent to several different concentration camps. He survived the war in Mauthausen and was liberated by American troops, but lost 89 relatives in the process.

The scale of the tragedy that affected his family and acquaintances shook him and he vowed to seek justice. Within three weeks of his release, he put together a list of Nazi war criminals for the US Army Counterintelligence Corps to hunt down. In 1947, he established the Jewish Historical Documentation Center in the Austrian city of Linz (which happened to be Hitler’s hometown) to go after Holocaust perpetrators. The Center closed in 1954 due to lack of external assistance and funding and its files went to Yad Vashem in Israel. He continued his work, in addition to assisting Jewish displaced persons to find their families with the Jewish Central Committee.

His most famous exploits were uncovering Adolf Eichmann’s hideout in Argentina and identifying several Nazis in Austrian Chancellor Bruno Kreisky’s government. Eichmann had fled to Argentina in the aftermath of the war and hid under an alias. In 1961, the Mossad went to Argentina and kidnapped him to bring him back for a trial. Later in the 1970s, he found that Kreisky, Austria’s first Jewish Chancellor and a fellow Holocaust survivor, was forming a coalition with a party including a former Nazi—this public spat between the two men divided Jewish communities in Austria and beyond.

In 1986, his reputation was damaged after details emerged of Kurt Waldheim’s service as a German military intelligence officer in Yugoslavia during WWII. Waldheim had served as Secretary-General of the United Nations between 1972 and 1981. Wiesenthal had previously cleared Waldheim of any wrongdoing and was greatly embarrassed when Waldheim’s Nazi past was discovered during his successful campaign for the Austrian presidency in 1986.

Wiesenthal received assistance in his work from volunteers, informants, and other Nazi hunters. He even received support from German war veterans who were appalled by the atrocities they had witnessed. He passed away in 2005 in Vienna and was laid to rest in Herzliya, Israel.

2. Primo Levi

Survivors of the Holocaust came from a variety of backgrounds. Primo Levi was a scientist who witnessed the worst of humanity from behind the wire in Auschwitz. He was born in 1919 in Turin, northern Italy. In his youth, he witnessed the destruction of democracy in Italy and the rise of the Fascists and Squadrismo. After graduating from the University of Turin with a degree in Chemistry, he worked in northern Italy. He lived in Milan until 1943.

Italy initially respected Jewish concerns, even with the rise of fascism. However, allying with Germany meant that Nuremberg-style legislation was implemented in the late 1930s. By WWII, Italian fascists began hunting down Jews they considered enemies of the state. Levi was sympathetic to antifascist Italians and, as a result, was arrested and deported to Auschwitz in 1944. Of the 650 Jews on his train to occupied Poland, a mere 20 including Levi survived.

While at Auschwitz, he almost went into the gas chambers. However, his chemistry degree meant he was kept alive to work for the German industrial conglomerate IG Farben. He was liberated by the Red Army on January 27, 1944. A shell of his former self, Levi decided to write his memoirs of his time in Auschwitz under the title If This Is A Man. This was complemented by other writings like The Periodic Table. In 1987, he fell from a balcony in his apartment in Turin, which was ruled a suicide. He never truly recovered from his time in a camp. His writings gave a clear inside look at conditions in Auschwitz.

3. Simone Veil

The surviving Jewish community in Europe made a significant contribution to the creation of postwar political institutions in the continent. One of the EU’s most famous parliamentarians was Simone Veil. She was born on July 13, 1927 in the city of Nice. Her family were architects and chemists who lived near the Côte d’Azur. Simone Jacob was deported to Auschwitz by the Germans along with her sisters on March 28, 1944. Her parents and brother did not survive the war.

Once she returned to France, she vowed to move forward and make up for the part of her life lost during the war. She studied law at the University of Paris, married Antoine Veil, and worked for the Ministry of Justice. Over time, she became a passionate advocate for women’s rights and equality. While serving as Health Minister for President Valery Giscard D’Estaing, she promoted abortion rights for French women. Initially, the law enshrining abortion rights faced heated opposition; it became widely accepted in France within a few decades.

Afterward, she ran for a seat in the European Parliament. She was a major supporter of European integration, including the Maastricht Treaty that created the European Union out of the European Economic Community. From 1979-1982, she served as the first President of the European Parliament. In 2008, she was elected to the Académie Française, and in 2012, she received the Grand Cross of the Legion of Honor. Throughout her life, she spoke about the impact her parents’ and brother’s death had on her. When she passed away in 2017, she was granted a state funeral and buried in the Pantheon.

4. Theodor Meron

The end of the Second World War led to the creation of the regime of international law that exists today. One survivor who dedicated his life to these principles was Theodor Meron. Born in the Polish city of Kalisz in 1930, he was still a young man when he and his entire family were deported to the Częstochowa Ghetto. Four years later, he was liberated but almost his entire family had been killed. He was orphaned and deprived of a proper education, leading to his immigration to Mandatory Palestine.

After gaining a law degree from Hebrew University in Jerusalem and serving in the Israeli Defense Forces, he joined Israel’s diplomatic mission to the UN. This was the start of his career in Israel’s civil service. As a legal advisor to the Israeli Foreign Ministry, he warned the government in 1967 that building settlements in the territories seized after the Six-Day War was a violation of international law. He maintains this stance to the present day.

As a member of the U.S. delegation to the Rome Conference for the establishment of the International Criminal Court in 1998, Meron helped draft the provisions on war crimes and crimes against humanity. He became a judge for the ICC, a professor at multiple universities, and the editor-in-chief of the Journal of International Law. While presiding over the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, he witnessed numerous trials of war criminals in the Yugoslav Wars. His writing about the Holocaust emphasized that it was a tragedy for the whole of humanity, not just the Jewish people.

5. Éva Fahidi

Around 440,000 Hungarian Jews were sent to the death camps between May and July 1944. One of these was 18-year-old Éva Fahidi. Born on October 22, 1925, in Debrecen, Hungary, Fahidi grew up in a middle-class Hungarian Jewish family. Her family converted to Catholicism in 1936 but were still subjected to discriminatory legislation under Admiral Miklós Horthy’s regime. For most of the war, Hungarian Jews managed to avoid deportation until 1944. Local gendarmes turned Fahidi’s family over to the SS.

The rest of her family was killed in Auschwitz but she managed to survive and was transferred to Buchenwald. There, she was forced to work in armaments production. Upon being liberated by American troops in 1945, she returned to Hungary. For decades, she worked in menial jobs and kept a low profile until after the fall of communism. In 2003, when she visited Auschwitz, she was stunned to see what had happened there since the end of the war. She decided to write memoirs of her experiences because she did not want her story to disappear.

Her book, The Soul of Things, was widely read and she spoke to crowds of people who wanted to know about her story. In 2015, she attended the trial of Oskar Gröning, an SS guard at Auschwitz. She was a dancer in her youth and participated in performances later on. In 2012, she was awarded the Order of Merit by the German government. On September 11, 2023, she passed away in Budapest at the age of 97.

6. József Forgács

Roma Holocaust survivors are not as prominent as their Jewish counterparts, but many nonetheless attempted to make their voices heard. József Forgács was born in the Hungarian town of Zalaegerszeg on April 22, 1935. His family lived a poor, destitute existence typical of Roma and Sinti in interwar Europe. Similar to Éva Fahidi, he and his family were rounded up by the Hungarian police in November 1944. His parents and brothers were killed at Auschwitz while he was sent to a labor camp in Germany. For many years, he was unsure of where he was sent; over time, he learned that he went to Mauthausen.

For the rest of the war, he did forced labor until his liberation. He had no idea of how to get home, so he joined some other Roma boys trying to return to their respective countries of origin. Upon arriving at the Hungarian border, he immediately went to his hometown to see if he could find out what happened to the rest of his family. His home was destroyed and he slowly rebuilt his life. For 40 years, he worked in construction or as a border guard as part of mandatory military service. Only after Hungary gained freedom from communist rule did he feel free to speak about his experiences.

Unlike the other survivors mentioned above, Forgács did not write a book about his experiences, but he did speak about what happened to his family. The Porajmos, which was the Roma word for the Holocaust, took a longer period of time to enter the public consciousness. Only with testimony from people like József Forgács did it become known what happened to the Roma of Europe in WWII.

During the turn of the 20th century, the Russian Empire witnessed rapid industrialization and urbanization that in turn raised political consciousness among workers and peasants in the empire. These political tensions combined with the desire for greater autonomy among non-Russian communities in the empire and led to the outbreak of the 1905 Revolution. With the bulk of its armed forces engaged in the Russo-Japanese War, the tsarist government appeared to be on the verge of collapse and was compelled to offer political concessions to end the revolution.

The Romanovs at the Beginning of the 20th Century

The Romanov dynasty had ruled Russia since 1613. The Romanovs emulated other European monarchies by centralizing power and pursuing territorial expansion to the Pacific coast. At the same time, Russia struggled to modernize at the same rate as its European rivals. Russia’s powerful landed aristocracy ensured that serfdom was not abolished until the 1860s, while national minorities in the western parts of the empire frequently sought independence from Russian rule. With radical political ideas spreading across Europe in the 19th century, a violent upheaval seemed all but inevitable.

Following the assassination of the reformist Tsar Alexander II in 1881, his successors Tsar Alexander III and Nicholas II reverted to reactionary policies to preserve the regime. The secret police known as the Okhrana targeted enemies of the state and sent them into internal exile in Siberia. The landlords retained much of their power over the peasantry, who were taxed heavily and often lacked the means of independent subsistence. Russia also increased its military spending to ensure that it could fight the Ottomans or any other European power at any time.

A decade before the 1905 Revolution, Nicholas II succeeded his father Alexander III and retained his father’s policies. Peasants still struggled to pay off redemption dues for their land and aristocratic landlords continued to dominate Russian society. Alexander III and Nicholas II’s efforts to develop Russian industry resulted in poor conditions for factory workers in cities, encouraging the creation of labor unions to demand better working conditions.

The Rise of Revolutionary Socialism and Different National Movements

The Romanovs faced a diverse set of revolutionary movements that grew more powerful at the turn of the century. Inspired by the 1848 uprisings across Europe, revolutionary movements throughout the empire began taking on the authorities in the late 1800s. The People’s Will, an insurgency based in major cities, assassinated Tsar Alexander II. The years before 1905 witnessed the formation of various political organizations that either sought to place constitutional limits on the tsar’s power or to overthrow the monarchy and establish a socialist state.

The most powerful revolutionary movements at the time included the Socialist Revolutionaries, who were popular in the countryside and favored a form of agrarian socialism, and the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, a Marxist organization which saw the working class as the vanguard of socialist revolution. However, after 1903, the RSDLP split between the moderate Menshevik faction, led by Julius Martov, and hardline Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir Lenin. Efforts to re-establish unity between the two factions were largely unsuccessful.

Additionally, nationalist movements developed throughout the empire. Ukraine, Poland, the Baltics, and other colonies of Russia witnessed a rise in nationalism that coincided with the revolutionary movement in Russia. Polish nationalists wanted to avenge the defeat of the 1863 uprising. Jewish communities in the Pale of Settlement came to embrace revolutionary ideas in response to widespread antisemitism and political violence under the Romanovs. While many left-wing revolutionaries such as Julius Martov and Leon Trotsky were Jewish, this created the trope that the Bolsheviks were a Jewish movement.

Bloody Sunday

When many Russian peasants in the countryside moved to cities they hoped to gain more work opportunities. However, many struggled to find jobs, became homeless, or were condemned to work in miserable conditions. Strikes were commonplace and were often brutally suppressed by Russian state authorities. This, however, did not lead to a reduction in strikes or work stoppages.

Father Georgy Gapon, a Ukrainian Orthodox priest living in St. Petersburg, was a major organizer of the strikes. He led an organization called the Assembly of the Russian Factory and Mill Workers of the City of St. Petersburg. Ironically, Gapon received some backing from parts of the Russian government who hoped to control the union movement from the inside. On Sunday January 22, 1905, he led a procession of workers in St. Petersburg to the Winter Palace with a petition addressed to the tsar. It demanded an end to the Russo-Japanese War, universal suffrage for all, and increased labor protections. Ironically, the demands were opposed by many of the revolutionary factions who hoped for more radical change.

When the marchers reached the Narva Gate, they found that soldiers of the city garrison and the Imperial Guards had been mobilized to stop the march. In a series of clashes, hundreds of marchers were killed by gunfire or trampled by horses. Gapon subsequently left the country. Opponents of the Tsar, even those opposed to the march, were angered and radical calls for violent action increased. Even Tsar Nicholas himself, who was away from St. Petersburg, was appalled by the death toll. The events of Bloody Sunday unleashed a torrent of revolutionary activity that lasted throughout the year.

Strikes and Mutinies

The killing of so many peaceful marchers kicked off a series of rebellions and demonstrations all across the Russian Empire. Polish socialists instigated a series of strikes in major Polish cities; nearly 94% of Polish workers participated in these actions over the course of the year. In Riga, Latvia, nearly 130 workers were shot after striking. Many people striking in the fringes of Russia demanded, in addition to labor rights, that there would be a halt to Russification policies that suppressed non-Russian culture.

The divide-and-rule policies in Russia led to major ethnic clashes throughout the Empire too. In the Caucasus, Armenians and Tatars killed each other in a series of massacres that presaged the Armenian Genocide in WWI. Jews came under attack from both opponents and supporters of the tsar, leading to the deaths of nearly 3,000 of them in pogroms. The bloodiest one in Odesa in October 1905 caused nearly 800 deaths. Polish leftists and rightists fought each other, even as they demanded independence from Russia. Amidst the chaos, revolutionary movements struggled to bring together the opponents of the Tsar. The St. Petersburg Soviet chaired by Leon Trotsky, the first of its kind, was ridden by infighting between the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks.

The military was affected too. Army units either fighting in Manchuria or on garrison duty staged mutinies as a result of battlefield losses and poor treatment by officers. The navy was ridden with mutinies, of which the battleship Potemkin in Odesa being the best known. The scale of the strikes and mutinies was immense; by October it was estimated that millions of Tsar Nicholas’ subjects were engaging in revolutionary activity.

End of the Revolution

The government fought back ferociously against the revolution. Loyal military units unaffected by mutinies were brought in to crush any resistance. Large portions of the empire were subject to emergency rule, in which the Okhrana and police could arrest anyone. The naval mutinies in Kronstadt, Odesa, Vladivostok, and Sevastopol were broken with the deaths of 2,000 sailors. The tsar also relied on a militia called the Union of Russian People, more commonly referred to as the Black Hundreds. This organization was responsible for many of the pogroms that took place during this period.

At the same time, Nicholas hoped to offer the strikers some reform to bring back order. He created the Shidlovsky Commission to investigate the causes of the strikes. However, this commission was dissolved before it could start work. Additionally, he published the Bulygin Rescript and October Manifesto, promising more rights and elections in an attempt to weaken the revolutionary movement. Amnesties for people arrested in the revolution were issued and Russia’s prison population declined.

The Tsar’s concessions divided the opposition. Some liberals were pleased, especially with the promise of creating the Duma, and called for a halt in the protests. The radicals, however, wanted to destroy the tsarist regime entirely. More violent uprisings took place before the year’s end. Lenin helped instigate the largest uprising in Moscow in December. After it was defeated, the revolution effectively came to an end, though disturbances in the countryside continued into 1906 and 1907. After the Treaty of Portsmouth that ended the Russo-Japanese War, the tsar had more manpower at his disposal to pacify the countryside. The 1905 Revolution claimed the lives of some 1,500 tsarist loyalists and 15,000 revolutionaries.

The Russian Constitution 1906 and the Aftermath of the Revolution

Once it became clear that the tsar would need to make concessions, he announced the creation of a bicameral parliament. An elected representative body known as the Duma served as the lower house, while the existing State Council took on the functions of the upper house, with some of its members elected and others appointed directly by the tsar. However, the Fundamental Law of 1906 reiterated the tsarist ideology that the empire was one and indivisible. Furthermore, the tsar retained the right to veto any legislation passed by the Duma.

The First Duma was convened in April 1906 and dominated by the Constitutional Democratic (Kadet) Party. Although they did not seek to overthrow the tsar, the Kadets demanded more radical reforms than the tsar was willing to offer, and he dissolved the First Duma in 73 days. Elections were held for a Second Duma in 1907, but this proved even more radical and was soon dissolved.

The failure of the Second Duma prompted Nicholas’ prime minister Pyotr Stolypin to propose changes to the electoral franchise that resulted in the more conservative Third Duma, which proved more effective at legislating. While Stolypin brutally crushed any remaining peasant disturbances, he also instituted reforms to improve the livelihoods of peasants and urban workers. His policies created a new class of peasant landowners called kulaks, whom he hoped would be a bastion of support for the tsarist regime in the countryside. He also sought to relieve pressure in European Russia by encouraging the economic development of Siberia. Stolypin’s reforms were not enough for the revolutionaries and in 1911 Stolypin was assassinated by Dmitrii Bogrov, a Ukrainian Jewish Anarchist who hated the Empire.

The continued repression by the tsar inspired terrorist attacks by Socialist Revolutionaries and Bolsheviks. Between 1906 to 1909, revolutionary factions killed nearly 8,000 people. Anti-Russian nationalist movements continued to develop in the Empire and sought external support. For instance, Józef Piłsudski created a Polish underground movement that received help from Germany and the Austrian Empire. In 1913, Tsar Nicholas II celebrated the 300th anniversary of Romanov rule in Russia. The widespread demonstrations of support for the tsarist regime on this occasion belied the revolutionary tensions under the surface. While the 1905 Revolution had failed to topple the tsar, Leon Trotsky later described it as the dress rehearsal for the end of Romanov rule in 1917.

When the Dutch fleet destroyed 13 English warships anchored on the Medway in Kent, they inflicted one of the worst defeats in English naval history. The victory demonstrated the prowess of the 17th century Dutch navy and ensured the Second Anglo-Dutch War ended on favorable terms for the Dutch.

The Second Anglo-Dutch War

The Second Anglo-Dutch War was a continuation of the 17th century Anglo-Dutch rivalry over trade routes and overseas possessions. It did not start with one battle. Instead, the English began raiding Dutch outposts in the Americas and Africa. When the Dutch retaliated, King Charles II formally declared war with the intention of weakening Dutch control over its maritime trade routes. The Dutch Grand Pensionary, Johan de Witt, began mobilizing his forces to stop English attacks on Dutch merchantmen and try to recapture the lost colonies.

In 1665 and 1666, the English and Dutch engaged in a series of ruthless naval engagements that saw both fleets suffer heavy losses. Both navies had considerable experience after years of battling the Spanish or French. They also relied on privateers to attack each others’ shipping. At one point, the English managed to push the Dutch fleet out of the Channel entirely and raided the Vlie estuary, destroying 140 Dutch merchantmen. This gave the English a temporary upper hand, but the Dutch were not out of the fight.

In 1665, London was hit with a massive plague that devastated the Crown’s finances.The following year witnessed the Great Fire of London. By early 1667, the English government could no longer afford to pay its sailors or maintain its fleet. Charles II made the fateful decision to lay up his heavy warships at Chatham, relying on small “flying fleets” and ongoing peace negotiations at Breda. This returned the advantage to the Dutch, who began planning to strike at what remained of the English fleet at anchor.

Michiel de Ruyter and George Monck

The Dutch hero of the war was Admiral Michiel de Ruyter. A sailor since he was eleven years old, he was a veteran of the First Anglo-Dutch War. For years, he protected Dutch merchantmen from the Spanish, pirates, and English privateers. In 1664, he took several ships on orders from the Dutch Republic and retook several outposts on the West African coast before returning to the Netherlands. Upon his return in 1665, De Ruyter accepted supreme command of the Dutch fleet and was named Lieutenant-Admiral of Holland after his predecessor was killed during the Battle of Lowestoft.

In June 1666, de Ruyter achieved a hard-fought, major victory over the English fleet in one of the longest naval battles in history. Although the English were not destroyed, it was a significant victory for the Dutch. It established his reputation as one of the best naval commanders in the 17th century. Around the Netherlands, he was known as “Bestevaêr,” or “Grandfather.” When the Dutch Admiralty began planning to destroy what remained of the English fleet at anchor, de Ruyter intended to lead the attack personally.

General-at-Sea George Monck commanded English naval forces in the Medway. A veteran soldier of the English Civil War, he was celebrated as the architect of the Restoration and a trusted leader during national crises. After commanding English ships at sea for many years, he was recalled from the fleet by the King to help manage the chaos following the Great Fire of London, a task he performed with efficiency.

Opposing Forces

By 1667, the two countries were in negotiations to end the war. However, discussions had deadlocked because Charles II feared that an unfavorable deal would weaken his position at home. Johan de Witt became irritated and he hoped that another major naval victory would strengthen his hand at the negotiating table. He ordered Admiral de Ruyter to take as much of the Dutch fleet to sea as possible, without telling other senior members of the Dutch Admiralty what the plan was. De Ruyter was to take his ships into the mouth of the Thames and destroy what remained of the English fleet at anchor.

To accomplish this task, he had at his disposal a formidable fleet of 62 large warships, 15 smaller vessels, and 12 fireships. 17,500 men manned these vessels. In addition to the ships’ crews, a large contingent of Dutch marines was on hand to assault fortifications and board enemy vessels. The Dutch were the first nation to create an independent marine corps for this purpose. Admiral de Ruyter sailed aboard the 80-gun De Zeven Provinciën and he was assisted by Admiral Willem Joseph van Ghent and the politician Cornelis de Witt, who supervised the fleet at the behest of his brother Johan.

The English were poorly prepared for this attack. General-at-sea Monck had seen most of his ships laid up because the government could not afford to maintain them. A few guard vessels were anchored near the main dockyards at Chatham, but they were ill-prepared for the onslaught. There were fortifications on the banks of the Medway and the Thames, these were also poorly manned and lacked gunpowder and munitions for an extended fight.

The Dutch Approach

England received warnings from its spy network in continental Europe that the Dutch fleet was preparing to sail towards the English coast. However, the English authorities disregarded these warnings and there was no attempt to re-equip the English fleet on the Medway. The Dutch maintained good operational security; most ship captains were only made aware of their target while at sea. De Ruyter was supported by several English defectors, who knew the river well.

Upon reaching the mouth of the Thames, De Ruyter left his heaviest ships as a covering force and blockade. A specialized “flying squadron” of smaller, more maneuverable ships under Willem Joseph van Ghent was designated for the actual inland raid. Ashore, the English were caught completely unaware. Charles believed that peace was imminent and the treasury could not pay soldiers and sailors enough to man their posts full-time. By the time messages from lookouts regarding the arrival of the Dutch fleet arrived in London, it was too late to save what remained of England’s navy.

Before entering the Medway, the Dutch bombarded the fort at Sheerness on the Isle of Sheppey. The English garrison, underpaid and demoralized, deserted the post, allowing the Dutch to land marines and seize the site on June 10. The Dutch maintained discipline and refrained from looting or burning homes when they landed detachments on the banks of the Medway. As they got closer to the Chatham dockyards, de Ruyter’s ships faced no meaningful resistance from the English.

The Battle

On June 22, Dutch forces completed their approach to the dockyards at Chatham. The centerpiece of the English defense was a massive iron chain stretched across the river at Gillingham. Despite English efforts to block the channel by sinking their own merchant ships, the Dutch attacked with determination. Several fireships broke the chain and Dutch vessels surged through the gap. A number of English guardships were destroyed almost immediately and the Dutch fleet began targeting HMS Royal Charles. Resistance proved to be insufficient to stop de Ruyter’s ships.

The next day, de Ruyter continued his advance upstream and found that the English had at last begun preparing defenses. Upnor Castle’s batteries began firing on the Dutch while other shore batteries tried to turn the Dutch back. However, most English ships were still undermanned, meaning that they could not meaningfully resist the Dutch. Admiral Monck ordered the Royal James, Royal Oak, and Loyal London to be scuttled in shallow water. Before this could happen, Dutch crews managed to light the ships on fire, permanently destroying them. De Ruyter then managed to pull his fleet back before they became trapped in the river.

The losses were heavily lopsided in favor of the Dutch. The English losses were as follows: two ships captured, 13 ships destroyed in combat, 30 ships scuttled by their own crews, and 500 men killed or wounded. The Dutch expended 8 fireships and lost between 50-100 men. Despite Admiral Monck’s best efforts, the English defenses were very weak because the Crown could not pay most of its sailors. The only meaningful resistance came from English batteries on shore.

Aftermath and Legacy of the Raid

After the battle, the Dutch kept their ships at the mouth of the Thames, exacerbating the English financial struggle. The difficulties that England faced caused a mass exodus from London and left Charles II on the brink of bankruptcy. As a result, the English agreed to sign terms that generally favored the Dutch. The Treaty of Breda ensured that the Dutch dominated several Atlantic trade routes. It also solidified Dutch naval dominance in northern Europe for many years. Charles II’s financial problems persisted, and in 1672 he was obliged to suspend debt repayments in the Stop of the Exchequer.

The defeat at the Medway was one of the most devastating defeats in British military history. The destruction of the fleet at Chatham had the same psychological effect on the English people as the Japanese assault on the Russian fleet at Port Arthur in 1904. For the Netherlands, the battle was a stunning victory and validated their confidence in Admiral de Ruyter’s abilities. The Dutch use of marines to support their raid was a major step in the evolution of amphibious operations.

The captured stern piece (transom) of the English flagship HMS Royal Charles remains on display at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam to this day, serving as a lasting physical symbol of the victory. In 2016, a Dutch movie about de Ruyter was released and became a hit with Dutch audiences. Additionally, reenactments of the battle have been staged with both English and Dutch actors. In the UK, the battle has mostly been forgotten, except by military historians and British naval officers hoping to draw lessons from Charles II’s lack of preparedness. The humiliation was quickly forgotten as the Royal Navy gained control of the seas in the 18th century.

By mid-1945, the Empire of Japan was at its breaking point. Its navy had been all but destroyed, and the rest of the Axis Powers in Europe had been defeated. Over half of its four-million-strong army was bogged down in China, an ongoing campaign since 1937. In short, Japan was beaten but not yet willing to surrender. Historically, Japan finally surrendered after the atomic bombings and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. However, before these developments, the United States planned to go through with a full-scale invasion: Operation Downfall.

The Pacific War and the War in China

In 1937, the Empire of Japan launched an invasion of China. While initially successful, their conquests stalled in 1939, and the Second Sino-Japanese War became a bloody war of attrition. In 1941, Japan, taking advantage of the German victories in Europe, began its own lightning-fast series of campaigns across the Pacific. While the most famous of these attacks was the attack on Pearl Harbor, Japan also rapidly and successfully invaded American (Guam, Wake Island, and the Philippines) and British territories (Hong Kong, Malaya, and Burma) in the region.

Despite initial victories in the Pacific, the Imperial Japanese Navy’s gamble at Pearl Harbor did not pay off. Instead of scaring the US into negotiating peace and continuing its isolationism, the assault enraged the American populace and ensured that the United States would fight Japan to the bitter end.

In the following years, the early Japanese gains in the Pacific were reversed as the US embarked on a naval and island-hopping campaign, defeating the Japanese at nearly every turn. By mid-1945, Japan had lost its grip on much of its occupied territories in the Pacific, with the American victory in the Battle of Okinawa placing the Allies within striking distance of the Japanese home islands. However, this battle proved bloody for the Americans, resulting in 12,520 Americans killed or missing, the bloodiest of the Pacific War. With each successive invasion of the Pacific War getting increasingly bloody, the planned final campaign would certainly be even worse.

The First Steps: Operation Olympic

Operation Downfall was divided into two distinct phases, the first of which was Operation Olympic. Olympic was a plan to occupy Kyushu, the southernmost island of the Japanese home islands. Scheduled for November 1, 1945 (called “X-Day”), Olympic was to be an amphibious invasion of a scale never before seen in human history. For comparison, the initial landings of Operation Overlord (more commonly referred to as D-Day), the largest amphibious invasion in history, involved around 160,000 men. The initial landing of Operation Coronet called for 14 divisions, roughly 582,000 men.

Following the establishment of beachheads in Kyushu, several hundred thousand more Allied troops were scheduled to reinforce the first forces on the island. These reinforcements would bring the total Allied troops in Kyushu to around 767,000. Applying the same 35% casualty rate experienced on Okinawa, the planners of Operation Olympic expected around 268,000 casualties (killed, wounded, or captured). While Operation Olympic would have led to huge casualties, there is no reason to suggest that the invasion of Kyushu would have failed. With the battles of Normandy and Okinawa as models, one could expect heavy initial resistance from Japanese forces followed by months of heavy fighting that would likely last into 1946 until the end of the war.

Before the actual troop landings, Downfall called for increased bombing raids across the Japanese home islands, which were carried out using incendiary bombs. Large swathes of Tokyo were burned to the ground, and roughly 400,000 Japanese died in these bombing raids across the country.

In the ten days preceding X-Day, bombings would be increased and target important fortifications and bases across Japan. On the day before the landings on Kyushu, both air and sea forces would heavily bombard the landing beaches in hopes of softening the Japanese defenses.

Finally, on X-Day, US Marine and Army forces would land simultaneously in southern Kyushu on three separate landing sites, quickly moving to secure important objectives and clear the way for reinforcements to follow. However, the Imperial Japanese Army had anticipated an invasion of Kyushu and made its own plans to respond—plans that the Allies might not have been prepared to handle.

The Japanese Response: Operation Ketsugo

In 1274, Japan had fought off an attempted invasion by the Mongol Empire thanks to a “Kamikaze” (Divine Wind, a typhoon that sank the Mongol fleet). When the Mongols returned in another, even larger invasion attempt in 1281, it too was destroyed by a typhoon. This defeat was even more destructive for the Mongols, with some accounts even claiming 100,000 losses for the Mongol army.

While this might not seem relevant to Operation Downfall, the Japanese might have been greatly helped by another “Divine Wind.” The originally planned date for Operation Coronet, November 1, was amid a particularly terrible typhoon season, meaning Coronet would likely need to be postponed. Early December was the earliest, but 1946 was more likely to avoid the winter storms. This would have given Japanese forces even more time to prepare for the seemingly inevitable conflict.

While Japanese forces overseas had suffered massive defeats across all fronts, the Imperial Japanese Army still had significant forces in the home islands. Knowing an American invasion would most likely land in Kyushu, it was the closest of the home islands to the now American-controlled Okinawa; the Japanese planned on confronting the invasion there. The Japanese defense plan, called Operation Ketsugo (translating to “Decisive Operation”), called for the construction of new airfields in Kyushu, primarily for use by kamikaze pilots. By the historical date of the Japanese surrender (August 14, 1945), the Imperial Japanese Army had amassed a force of over 900,000 troops for the defense of Kyushu, a number that likely would have ballooned even further given more time.

In addition to a massive wave of kamikaze strikes, the Imperial Japanese Navy also had several hundred two-man “midget submarines” to harass American ships, at least 800 suicide “Shinyo” motor boats assigned to Kyushu, and a planned 4,000 “Fukuryu,” suicide divers. The Japanese even planned to mobilize their “Civilian Volunteer Corps,” an army of conscripted civilians, both men and women, armed with hand grenades, swords, spears, and anything else they could use to inflict death. Approximately 2.4 million civilians lived in Kyushu, and many of them (men aged 15-60 and women aged 17-40) would be sent to die under the slogan “the glorious death of the 100 million.”

Ketsugo was not intended to stop the invasion; in fact, it relied on allowing American landings. Ketsugo was designed to cause as many American casualties as possible, no matter the cost to the Japanese people. The hope was that inflicting so many casualties on American forces would make the US public demand peace, thus avoiding a foreign occupation of Japan through a negotiated peace.

It was a desperate final gambit, not a serious chance at victory. However, this was not likely to work. The American public was still enraged at the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and fully committed to seeing the war to its end. In the eyes of the United States, Japan’s unconditional surrender was the only path to peace, and this was not likely to change.

The Final Blow: Operation Coronet

The second phase of Downfall, Operation Coronet, was intended to land on Honshu, the largest of the Japanese home islands. According to the plan, US forces would land on the Kanto Plain near Tokyo on March 1, 1946, called “Y-Day.” Theoretically, they would capture the Japanese capital, deal a knockout blow, and end the war. Coronet called for landing 25 divisions, a significantly larger force than that used in the Kyushu landings. Overall, Coronet was intended to include 1,171,646 American troops and Australian, Canadian, British, and French reinforcements following the initial landings in the Kanto Plain. Unlike Olympic, American forces would also include two armored divisions sent from Europe, which would have a significant advantage over weaker Japanese tanks. Like the invasion of Kyushu, Coronet would be preceded by major bombardments of the Kanto Plain by land and sea, with many planes taking off from airfields in occupied Kyushu.

Japanese defenses were significantly weaker near Tokyo than those in Kyushu, and they lacked sizable forces to defend the city. While Japanese forces were prepared to defend Tokyo to the last man, the Japanese military knew the region was indefensible due to the flat plains of the region. Instead of simply inflicting casualties as was planned for Kyushu, the defense plan of Honshu relied on driving the American forces into the sea and preventing them from establishing a beachhead. The Japanese understood that should a significant American force land in the Kanto Plain and successfully establish a beachhead, it would inevitably succeed in capturing Tokyo. Because of the more powerful Allied force planned for landing on Honshu and the weaker Japanese defenses, Coronet would likely be less bloody than Olympic and, should the Japanese high command or even the emperor himself be captured, a war-winning decisive battle.

Would Operation Downfall Have Succeeded?

While an invasion of Japan would have been enormously deadly, American combat deaths in WWII would likely have more than doubled, and the Japanese population would have suffered even more, Downfall would almost certainly have resulted in an Allied victory. The United States massively outmatched Japan in population, industry, and resources, and the American populace was fully committed to seeing the war through to its end. The Allies were unwilling to allow anything less than Japan’s unconditional surrender.

Regardless of Ketsugo and the increased casualties it would undoubtedly cause, Japan’s defeat was inevitable. Of course, Operation Downfall was never carried out. Instead of months of brutal combat in a land invasion of Japan, the war ended only a few days after two atomic bombings and the loss of Japanese territories in mainland Asia to a Soviet invasion. While it is impossible to say for certain how Operation Downfall would play out, an American victory at enormous cost for both sides seems the most likely scenario.