Mega Cities in WWII

[kiwitt]

I am currently reading Barbarossa (Alan Clark) and Hitler was concerned about attacking Leningrad (and Moscow for that matter), given the size of the population he would have to deal with.

The Mega Cities in WWII I see are; London, New York, Paris, Berlin, Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, Warsaw. And taking these were (or would be) quite heavy battles.

Were there any other Mega-Cities, i.e. best avoided by Armed Forces, due to the size of the populations ?

 

[Cutlass]

Several in Japan. Which is why we tried to bomb them into surrender.

 

[Kadazzle]

Yes, all the main ones were in Japan. They were also very densely populated.

 

[Dachs]

Stalingrad wasn't that big of a city. About half a million people, possibly swollen in 1942 to 750,000 due to refugees from further west. Nothing like the Japanese metropoleis.

 

[Tee Kay]

Yes, Japanese cities were big. From Wikipedia, Tokyo in 1940 had 6,778,804 people (third largest at the time after London and New York), Osaka had 3,252,340, and Nagoya 1,328,084. Seoul had 1,100,000 people. Chinese cities were pretty big as well though not as big as the Japanese and European ones. Beiping, Guangzhou, Tianjin, and Mukden had around 1 million people each, and Shanghai had 3.5 million people.

Berlin had 4.3 million people, Moscow had 4.1 million, Warsaw 1.3 million, Leningrad 3.1 million.

 

[Verbose]

A bit of Germany:

By decree in 1937 the Nazis abolished the Free City of Hamburg, instead creating a greater Hamburg, becoming the second largest German city, 1.7 million inhabitants. Thankfully this inveterately western-oriented and liberal-minded city surrendered without a shot to the British in 1945.

Munich had 850 000 inhabitants in 1933. Maybe too small to be "mega"? Over a million maybe?

Cologne had 772 000 in 1939.

Dresden about 600 000 in WWII.

Leipzig around 500 000.

Generally the Ruhrgebiet centered around Frankfurt a/M might be considered an urban sprawl already in WWII.

 

[Squonk]

I am currently reading Barbarossa (Alan Clark) and Hitler was concerned about attacking Leningrad (and Moscow for that matter), given the size of the population he would have to deal with.

The Mega Cities in WWII I see are; London, New York, Paris, Berlin, Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, Warsaw. And taking these were (or would be) quite heavy battles.

Were there any other Mega-Cities, i.e. best avoided by Armed Forces, due to the size of the populations ?

Perhaps Wroclaw (Breslau): it had a population of 0,6 mln or so before the war, but it's swollen to 1 mln when the front approached. Germans turned it into "Festung Breslau" and defended it at all cost.

 

[REDY]

wiki quick research
Kiev - 930k in 1940; 180k in 1943
Prague - 850k in 1930 - one of last stands of regular fascists (besides werewolves, etc.)

 

[kiwitt]

Thanks for that.

So in essense a "Mega-City" in WWII terms would be a city of around 1 Million or More. I have found a good refernece site for this info. http://www.populstat.info/

 

[RalofTyr]

New York was a mega city and it was in WW2.

Most Japanese mega cities were made of wood and paper, that's why the US was able to destroy them.

Most US bombing actually missed the Mega Cities in Japan. The Japanese used to joke the Americans were trying to starve the Japanese by bombing Tokyo Bay, as most bombs ended up in, killing the fish.

 

[Tee Kay]

Most US bombing actually missed the Mega Cities in Japan. The Japanese used to joke the Americans were trying to starve the Japanese by bombing Tokyo Bay, as most bombs ended up in, killing the fish.

Actually, the Americans were highly successful in blockading Japan by mining Japanese coastal waters.

Also, by the war's end most of Japan's megacities were in ruins due to firebombing. The March 1945 B-29 raid alone killed around the same number of people in Tokyo as the Dresden raid.

 

[pi-r8]

This brings up something that I'm curious about. How DID they occupy cities in WWII? After defeating the enemy army in the field, did they just march down the street and that was it? Or did they also to have to destroy the local police force and militias? I guess I'm just unclear on how it's possible to turn an "enemy" city into a "conquered" city.

 

[REDY]

This brings up something that I'm curious about. How DID they occupy cities in WWII? After defeating the enemy army in the field, did they just march down the street and that was it? Or did they also to have to destroy the local police force and militias? I guess I'm just unclear on how it's possible to turn an "enemy" city into a "conquered" city.

I am not expert so anybody should correct me.
I would say that both cases were common, for extreme cases check Paris X Stalingrad.
Generally battles on West werent that harsh as on Eastern one. Common tactics was enrciclement, siege and cutting supplies to force city surrender, sometimes was better for army and resistance withdraw. Otherwise in cities were some buildings where defenders consolidated, like city hall, post office or radio building, in eastern wasnt uncommon that defenders used civic buildings and turned streets on battlefield. To make assault difficult were roads mined and streets barricaded. After taking relative control over city were still needed numbers of policemen, soldiers and some loyal locals, to preempt weapons smuggling and cooperation with resistance.

 

[Agent327]

Several in Japan. Which is why we tried to bomb them into surrender.

Yes, that strategy worked very well against Germany...* Also, the primary reason for the A-bombardments (not aimed at the biggest city at all) was fear of huge Allied casualties based on the Iwo Jima experience mainly; it's the one instance were aerial bombardment actually led to surrender.

*Despite Allied bombardments German wartime production actually peaked during 1944. It also completely failed in Vietnam.

 

[Cutlass]

Yes, that strategy worked very well against Germany...* Also, the primary reason for the A-bombardments (not aimed at the biggest city at all) was fear of huge Allied casualties based on the Iwo Jima experience mainly; it's the one instance were aerial bombardment actually led to surrender.

*Despite Allied bombardments German wartime production actually peaked during 1944. It also completely failed in Vietnam.

I said "we tried", I didn't comment on its effectiveness.

 

[sydhe]

Rome would have been a mega city.

 

[Agent327]

I said "we tried", I didn't comment on its effectiveness.

Fair enough.

 

[say1988]

*Despite Allied bombardments German wartime production actually peaked during 1944

That statement is thrown around far too often.
While they failed the ultimate goal of destroying German morale and crippling the economy and the bombing campaigns were extremely costly for the Allies, it wasn't totally ineffective.
First, the Germans were late at dedicating their economy solely to the War effort (I believe it was 1944 before they fully converted), and secondly just because it was growing doesn't indicate what the potential growth could have been.

Second, the amount of the economy, military, and research efforts diverted to defending cities from Allied bombing was quite considerable. Every extra AA gun battery in Western Europe took potential men and materiel from the front lines.

So in essense a "Mega-City" in WWII terms would be a city of around 1 Million or More.

I would also look at industrial output. A city may have a slightly smaller population, but be a major centre of industry.

How DID they occupy cities in WWII? After defeating the enemy army in the field, did they just march down the street and that was it? Or did they also to have to destroy the local police force and militias?

Every city was different. Once Paris was directly threatened both sides surrendered it without a fight.
Other cases, such as Leningrad or Dunkirk (in 44/45) the cities were besieged and bombarded for long periods of time (neither example was defeated). The idea being to starve the enemy into surrender or (especially in the West) that assaulting had little value and would cost more than besieging.
Then you get the opposite end where every room of every building is contested, troops are sent in to defend and attack.
And every point in between these three on the spectrum.

Civilian, police, and militia involvement was just as varied (from the defense of the Danzig post office to German capture of Paris), but from my knowledge usually followed the military lead (i.e. battles like Stalingrad and Berlin that the military defended had many civilians join the fighting, whether by choice or not, while when the military declared a city open or simply abandoned it they usually didn't fight).

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Stalingrad wasn't that big of a city. About half a million people, possibly swollen in 1942 to 750,000 due to refugees from further west. Nothing like the Japanese metropoleis.

Indeed. Kharkov was the 4th largest in the USSR, and it traded hands rather easily, and several times. It was the incredible sprawl and unique locations of Moscow and Leningrad that made them so dangerous, and Stalingrad made doubly dangerous by being bombed to complete horsehockeye beforehand and then expected to be taken and held with an understrength infantry army, the slow approach of which gave the Soviets ample time to reinforce the city.

 

[say1988]

Were there any other Mega-Cities, i.e. best avoided by Armed Forces, due to the size of the populations ?

Forgot to include this in my previous post:
I wouldn't look at population in regards to the ability to take it. It is a consideration, but the layout, construction, and area of the city would be far more important. Most important being the strategic value.