Sell your IB Docs (IA, EE, TOK, etc.) for $10 a pop!
Nail IB's App Icon
History SL
History SL
Sample Extended Essays
Sample Extended Essays

Skip to

Table of content

The failure of the german v-weapon program 1943-45

The failure of the german v-weapon program 1943-45 Reading Time
18 mins Read
The failure of the german v-weapon program 1943-45 Word Count
3,412 Words
Candidate Name: N/A
Candidate Number: N/A
Session: N/A
Personal Code: N/A
Word count: 3,412

Table of content

Abstract

The city of Antwerp, Belgium provides the place and the years 1944 to 1945 provide the time frame for this study in the use of key military weapons. The focus question of the essay asks, "How effective was the Nazi use of the V-series weapon against Antwerp was as a method of warfare?" The city of Antwerp is clearly of historical relevance to the V-Series weapons, as Nazi powers used the majority of V- series weapons on this Northern European port and on the city of London, England. To fully and accurately judge the effectiveness of these weapons, a range of their attributes and consequences were studied and judged. These included the opportunity cost, loss of life, development and production cost, and the failure or success of the mission of the V-Program. The Allies were bent on stopping these futuristic wonder-weapons, while the Axis powers were set on using them to their full destructive potential. Both sides achieved and failed to achieve objectives they had assigned with respect to their defense against or use of the V-Weapons. Evidence surrounding the results of these objectives was drawn from a key German source, General Walter Dornberger, commander of the Nazi rocket development base, and a contemporary Belgian source, historian Koen Palinckx, a resident of Antwerp. The findings supported that Nazi powers did not use the V-1 and V-2 weapons as effective instruments of war. Indeed, Flemish author Koen Palinckx perhaps best summarized this conclusion when questioned whether the V-Weapons had been successful, he replied, "Absolutely not!"

;