Knowledge and Support for WWII

I recently heard someone say that in contrast to the recent war in Iraq, the more that you knew about WWII, the more you would support it.  I'm not sure this is true.  Has anyone conducted a test to determine whether people who were more knowledgeable about WWII were more likely to support it?  It seems to me that Nicholson Baker has presented a well informed case against WWII in Human Smoke.

WWII has two kinds of opponents.  There are those who are opposed to Communism and those who are opposed to all war under any circumstances.  Neither of these groups are necessarily less informed.

I should point out that not all those who oppose Communism oppose WWII.  There are some who believe that our siding with the Soviet Union against Nazism was a necessary evil.

As for myself, I see WWII as a failure in policy by the West.  Britain and France entered the war in order to respond to the invasion of Poland after Czechoslovakia had been invaded.  After the war, neither country enjoyed national sovereignty.  The war was not entered into in order to protect Jews, but even if it were it failed to protect more than a third of the Jews of Europe.  It seems to me that there was a better way of protecting them, if that is what either France, Britain or the U.S. wanted to do.

Germany posed no threat to the U.S.  An invasion was a logistical impossibility.  The situation was less clear for Britain and France.  It seems that the Germans were intent on invading the Soviet Union, which was suicidal as well as being immoral.  It is quite likely that if Britain and France had decided to tolerate the invasion of Poland that the Germans would have concentrated their efforts in the east.

Had the Germans invaded the Soviet Union it is unclear that they would be successful at conquest.  Their economy was smaller and they had the disadvantage of being the attacker.  Even a successful conquest of the Soviet Union would not endanger France or Britain.  Successful occupation of Poland, Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union would require about 2% of the populations of those countries.  That would require slightly under 5 million men.  At the time Germany had a population of about 70 million and Italy had 45 million.  This would make about 57 million males.  Let's say that two thirds of these were able bodied men this would make about 38 million.  Hence the occupation would require about 13% of the combined able bodied men of Germany and Italy.  It is doubtful whether the populations of these countries would tolerate this.

In any case successful occupation of countries in the East would have placed serious manpower constraints on the Axis powers if they had wanted to invade the West.  Belgium, France, the Netherlands and the U.K. had a combined population of 100 million thus adding another 2 million to the number of men who would need to occupy conquered lands in the unlikely event that the conquest was successful.  This scenario would require that the axis powers successfully conquer nations that exceeded them in economic output.

The same could be said of the Japanese attempt at colonizing China.  China exceeded Japan in economic output, and the manpower requirements for occupying China would have proven prohibitive.  2% of China's population would have been 25 million, which was probably just about equal to the entire adult male population of Japan.