Outburst of World War II - Essay Example

History s School Topic Part A: The World War II took place on several fronts, equally significant in the order of importance as victory couldn`t be assured unless all fronts were secured. However, when a discussion about the turning point of the war is to be engendered, the literature oversees an immense amount of debate. In this context, the Soviet-German war is of crucial importance as the turning point is generally associated with the victory of the Red Army against the German Army. The most renowned scholars and historians have settled on the consensus that since the territories were acquired back by the Red Army in the 1943, this should be marked as the turning point of the war. However, at the same time some of the historians criticize this proposition and associate the turn of the tide with 1944 as Germans weren’t driven away until this time. However, the most viable and rational approach suggests that it was back in 1942 that the war took a turn and victory was assured as the first victory took place at this time. To understand the proposition in entirety, the shift in strategies needs to be understood. For this reason, it would be reasonable enough to discuss a little background of the operations. In 1941 when Germany attacked Soviet Union under the name of operation Barbarossa, Soviet Union was completely unprepared (Wienberg 1994). Thus, when the territories were attacked by the army a very high success was achieved by the Germans right in the beginning. This affected the morals of the Red Army as they were superior quantitatively, but their action was still limited to taking defensive actions which were ineffective in the beginning. However, the morals were retrieved in the winter attacks by the Red Army counter-attacks undertaken which proved to be of limited effect. In 1942, Red Army took advantage of the unorganized status of the German Army and launched an offensive attack. Though tangible objectives weren’t reached but Operation Barbarossa launched by Germans failed to a large extent. This was definitely a turning point, as the Red Army was now aware of the fact that they will eventually be able to defeat the German Army as it was losing control and command. Hitler had no specific objective in mind, and he had launched attacks on various fronts. This required long term planning with a narrow focus, which was somehow lacking thus loop holes were left which proved to be beneficial for the Soviets. Despite continuous efforts, the Soviet army wasn’t able to conquer either Moscow or Leningrad for that matter. To generate an unbiased approach to the analysis, the turning point can be assumed to be 1943 when Ukraine as well as Belorussia was acquired back by the Red Army which was previously taken over by the German Army. This was a huge achievement as a backward shift of Germans started taking place, which was a significant milestone. The penetration level eventually started taking place however evidence suggesting that this was the first turning point lacks. It would have been the case if this was the first time when there was even a slight indication that Red Army can take the game in their hands. However, this was decided already when the first offensive was launched back in 1942. This clearly indicates that turning point was already reached back in the 1941. Also, in this regard it is also important to study the German point of view i.e. which they regard as the turning point at the hands of the Red Army. A deeper study suggests that right in the beginning of the 1942, the German army was aware of the shortcomings of the army as they were vaguely taking over territories without any definite objective. This was also criticized by various supporters of the Hitler himself as they could also see the clash within the decorum of the organization. Thus considering both the points of views i.e. of the victors as well as loser the situation within the war front started to change in 1942 when the Red Army launched an offensive attack whereby they were successful in pressurizing the German army to a large extent. Part 2: The Second World War as interpreted by various historians carries many stories along, just like any other written account which presents various opinions and controversy. The stories from the war front indicate that though the victors were united to defeat the Axis powers no matter what it takes, but within the military camps there were internal rivalries going on between various army officials. One of these rivalries, which is often referred to in various biographies and history accounts is the one between Montgomery and Patton. Both the individuals had major personality differences as both intended on following distinct visions to achieve similar objectives. Patton is one of the most hard core General of his time, who is known for his abilities to dominate the crew he used to work with. He considered himself as superior to all others at similar positions; same was the case with Montgomery. Montgomery was however quite a senior general who had several legacies in his favor thus for him, Patton was no match. In addition to personality differences, both generals had ideological differences. Patton was of the offensive school of thought where he believed in action, and considered Montgomery to be rather slow in action. Montgomery belonged to the defensive school of thought whereby he had marked his career by achieving various victories via careful planning and taking the defensive. This conflict tool the shape of a rivalry on the Sicily front where both the Generals were stationed to conquer Italy. Montgomery was assigned a position at the front where he planned on carrying action according to his vision, but instead Patton took action and took the position. He also blamed Montgomery for being slow in action which he thought would lead to victory. Also, Patton was hard on acquiring demands for supplier where Montgomery had certain reservation. (Brighton, Patten, Rommel 2009) However, as Generals fighting for their countries both had exceptional records and without the contribution and courage of both the individuals, achieving victory would have been quite difficult. Patton exhibited his tactical skills and offensive strikes to achieve victory at Sicily and various other fronts throughout the war. He also managed to acquire resources for the war form the American sources. Montgomery, though led to some disasters during the war for his miscalculations, but he also managed to get away with many victories at various fronts. For instance, it was his expertise which saved the Allies from major casualties in the Rhine River. Also he was the one who undertook the Ardennes offensive with great responsibility without which victory wouldn’t have been possible. He worked in great collaboration with Eisenhower and advised him throughout to help achieve some huge victories for the Allies. Part 3: Yalta Conference held in Crimea left a huge landmark as some of the major decisions were made regarding the post war conditions by the big three. Held in 1945, this conference was held by Britain`s Sir Winston Churchill, Soviet Union`s Joseph Stalin and America`s Franklin D. Roosevelt, all representing the interests of their states. All three men of great intelligence expressed their concerns, or exhibited their visionary states to decide the future of the war torn Europe. The role of all three men has been quite impressive in context of the conference, and many negotiations were reached to benefit the entire world. (Stettinius 1994) All three leaders had distinct demands, whereby Sir Winston Churchill expressed his vision for equality and self determination. He wanted to achieve world peace by virtue of basic principles he regarded as the pre-requisites for peace. His main concern was over Poland which he wanted to go for free election to decide their fate, to which Staling agreed. Also, he wanted institutionalization to resolve the world crises as he felt that wars were a strain to development of various principals which shouldn’t be compromised on. In this context, his role was quite significant. The roles of Stalin and Roosevelt were however quite dependent on the conditions during the war, as they wanted to negotiate over reparations and the securitization of the border to prevent war in the future. In this regard, Stalin was resistant over the dominance of Soviets on the European front as they felt that their dominance would lead towards peace. However, Roosevelt played an eminent role in acquiring the assistance of the troops of Red Army to attain victory in Japan. Stalin agreed over the condition that Mongolia shall be recognized as Soviet`s territory, thus negotiations were reached. The conference proved to be a great success as the world leader were able to decide the future of the war torn Europe. Elections in Poland were agreed upon and conditions for reparations and demilitarization were reached to maintain peace in Europe. All leaders played roles to strengthen their positions and without much disagreements the negotiations were reached, which are reflected in the context that since that time no major world war has taken place. References: Weinberg, Gerhard L. A World at Arms: A Global History of World War Ii. Cambridge [England: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Print. Brighton, Terry. Patton, Montgomery, Rommel: Masters of War. New York: Crown, 2009. Print. Stettinius, Edward R. Roosevelt and the Russians: The Yalta Conference. Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday, 1949. Print Read More