Please comment on each of the following questions based on your reading of Goff 255-275. You can either answer my questions, respond to the comments of others, or ask a related question, but please comment in some form on each of the three. Do your best!
First, Hitler knew that a 2-front war should be avoided at all costs so he established the Nazi-Soviet Pact, guaranteeing that the USSR does not get involved. Why did he get attack the USSR, and should this be considered the turning point in the war? Second, would the US have entered WWII if there were no war in the Pacific (i.e. no attack on Pearl Harbor) Third, how had war "evolved" between WWI and WWII and what were the results?
I think the US would have entered the war even if there had been no war in the Pacific. I mean the US was practically in WWII already. They had been sending materials to Great Britain, and they were assisting the Chinese by sending supplies by road through Burma and by air from India. In addition to the US already helping nations out, I think they would have fully jumped into the war the second it looked like Japan was really grabing hold of the petroleum, rubber, and tin in Southeast Asia.
ReplyDeleteAnd to comment on Mr. Geary's third question, WWII had "evolved" in that the weapons were way more distructive thus resulting in a higher number of deaths.
I think Hitler did plan on attacking the Soviet Union it seems as though by the time WWII started it was clear that Hitler wanted control and I don't think he intended to leave the soviet union out of his power. I don't really think it was a turning point, but more of a continuance. I think the US would have had to get involved eventually because of the holocaust they had to defend human rights. As far as technology is concerned it had developed somewhat but the greatr change was that people now knew how to use more effectively.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kate on Hitler always having the intention of attacking the Soviet Union, it was pretty clear that he wouldn't just overlook them. I don't really see it as a turning point, only because I think it was just expected of him to do so.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the U.S., we most definitely would have joined the war without a conflict in the pacific. As soon as Hitler took control President Roosevelt and Congress began to take small actions towards preparing for war. Plus, our stakes in aid for Great Britain and escorting convoys across the Atlantic were all signs that we weren't going to listen to the public and play peace maker if war broke out. The Pacific was just the final push.
I have to say that the improvements in air warfare was pretty significant for this time. In WWI it was only until the very end that it arose and no one really knew how to lead it. But now in WWII strategies were strong and they were finally executed properly. In WWI the main warfare was done by sea, but now with air warfare taking action this meant involving civilians now in the terrors of war, not just soldiers, and greater destruction covering more ground.
I think that Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union is certainly a turning point in the war. He attacked in order to expand his "empire". In order to have a dominatory race, Hitler dreamed that groups of appropriate Germans would move to former Soviet lands. But in order to see out his Nazi racial idealogy, he would need to attack the Soviet Union and secure its land and raw materials.
ReplyDeleteAs fas as the U.S. entering the war, I think they absolutely would have, even had there been no Pearl Harbor. Even though the American public was against the U.S. entering the war, the American government thought that Nazism and fascism would wipe out democracy in Europe, which would then threaten U.S. safety. It would have ultimately been the government's decision, and they were already contemplating attack. Japan just struck first.
War changed drastically between WWI and WWII. The advancing technology was overwhelming. During WWI, battles were solidly trench warfare, with much constantly in stalemate. In WWII however, new technology allowed armies to attack from afar. The incorporation of U-boats for sneak attacks proved deadly. Incediary bombs (designed to start fires) could destroy whole cities with no invasion. High-altitude bombers, torpedo planes, and cruise missiles could attack from hundreds of miles away. Such advances forever altered the way of war.
I think that Hitler's desire for power would have led him to attack the USSR no matter what. By making a pact with them at teh beginning I think he was just trying to guarantee that he would be 100% successful in the end. I don't think he ever really intended to leave the USSR alone. Also, I think the US would have gotten involved in the conflict at some point, Pearl Harbor just happened to be the push that got it all going. Because the of the way the US is as a democratic nation it would have been viewed very negatively by the rest of the world if we had refuesed to get involved in something that had so much to do with human rights. As to the war "evolving" I agree with Kate. It was more people learning how to effectively use all the new technologies that had been introduced in WWI.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that the German attack on the ussr can be considered the turning point of the war, because it was very probable given Hitler's hatred of communism and how he'd used that as a method of gaining power. Thus there had been tension between those two countries for a long time, and I consider the british decision to continue the war after the French surrener to be a more realistic turning point.
ReplyDeleteLikewise, I think this turning point guaranteed US involvement in the war, and Britian could be portrayed as the last remaining protector of the free west, and because of our historical ties with them. Also because of Churchill and FDRs close relationship.
Since wwi, war had become more technological, more organized and more deadly. Masses could be killed with bombings, so it was easier than ever to scare civilians. WWII likewise had a specific cause for civilians to rally around, as we talked about in class, the Nazis were the perfect enemy. This led to higher morale and a greater war effort.
I think that Hitler had two main reasons for attacking the USSR, and they are the same reasons that he attacked any other country: Germany was devoid of natural resources, and Hitler believed that the people of the USSR, like all other non-Aryans, were inferior, and therefore, Germany had their right to impose its superiority on the USSR. While I believe that this may not be the biggest turning point in the war (Pearl Harbor probably was, even though United States help had been a long time coming), it was A major turning point in the war. The USSR was an invaluable ally against the Axis powers for this war.
ReplyDeleteAs for the second point, I've already stated my position: I believe that the United States getting involved in the war in the Pacific, and with the Axis powers, was only a matter of time. There was already a strong fear and dislike of Hitler and his allies before Pearl Harbor. We had already imposed an embargo on Japan, we had made it clear that we did not support them. The Japanese Bombing at Pearl Harbor was just the metaphorical "straw that broke the camel's back." It pushed the United States from its borderline war-neutrality stance to one of willing war. (Technically, Pearl Harbor would have brought the United States to war with Japan even if relations hadn't been awful already, however, that doesn't mean that it was impossible for the Japanese-United States relations to be poor.)
Lastly, despite the fact that technology got bigger and better between the two World Wars (especially in aircraft), the style of fighting pretty much remained the same: more grueling trench warfare that, although momentary isolated gains of territory were common, resulted in a bloody stalemate- only this time, because of the deadlier technologies killing even more people, the war was more of a true total war. (Of course, the atomic bomb invented at the tail end of World War II definitely did change the face of war, but, arguably, it didn't change the outcome of the war at that point- Japan was on the brink of defeat anyway.
I agree with the points that Hitler hated communism and would have attacked it eventually, and that the Nazis believed the Slavs to be subhuman. With these facetors, Hitler's attack on the USSR was very predictable.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. probably would have gotten involved in WWII even if Japan had never attacked. We had already spent so much money in support of Great Britain that if we had let her submit to Germany we would have lost all of it. Also, what Kaylan said about preserving democracy in Europe would have been a deciding factor for the U.S.
WWII had evolved in both strategy and weaponry, as has already been established. Aircraft were used for Terror Bombing civilians in addition to just attacking enemy military. The role of women was even more important worldwide in this war. Russian women were even active in fighting, not just in production.
I think that Hitler really did think that USSR was going to attack them eventualy. but i think that he wanted to put it off for a little bit. i think an attack on the USSR was bound to happen due to the conflicting views. i dont think that it was a turning point in the war but i think that it made it more complicated.
ReplyDeleteOf course the US would have gotten involved. the US always gets involved.
I think that evolution of war technology meant more allover destruction.
First, I think that Hitler was definitely going to attack the USSR at some point, because of his obvious opposition to communism. Also, since the USSR is part of his 'non-Aryan' hatred, they were also more prone to attack. I wouldn't say it's a turning point, because it was so likely for them to be attacked, so it wasn't a big surprise that changed the course of the war.
ReplyDeleteSecond, the U.S. would have gotten involved in the war with or without war in the Pacific. In previous situations, the U.S. is known to become involved because they think it's their 'duty' to intervene and help in bad situations. Also, the U.S. wanted to help continue democracy in Europe, and wanted to keep aiding Great Britain, so their involvement in the war was no surprise.
Third, I think that the evolution between WWI and WWII was mainly in aviation in terms of technology. Everyone seemed to develop more aviation, and learned how to involve it in their war strategies, which really changed the way the war turned out.
Hitler most definitely had intentions of attacking the Soviet Union, he made it clear that he had it out for the communists and he thought the Slavs were inferior to his ideal Aryan race. Also Hitler made it quite clear that he wanted to spread Nazism as far is it would go, so why would he stop with Russia, France had already surrendered and the British were weak, it was the ideal time for Hitler to strike. Although I agree with Kate in that I don't think it was the turning point of the war, but merely a continuation of Hitler's plans.
ReplyDeleteTo answer the second question I believe The US would've entered the war regardless of whether of not Pearl Harbor happened. Roosevelt was already preparing for a wartime economy in the late 1930's and he made knew that if democracy fell in Europe the US would be the next target, so even if he didn't have to worry about the Pacific front, the European front still would've posed an issue with the US.
Lastly, I think the biggest change from WWI to WWII was that WWII battle plans actually involved strategy that put the new technology to use, rather than just lining up in trenches and blasting each other, strategies were used like the Blitzkrieg and terror bombing, as well as complex battle plans like the ones used to complete D day.
I definitely think that Hitler planned on attacking the Soviet Union. To me, the real question is, why wouldn't he? I think the Soviet Union should have seen it coming - Hitler hated Communists, which the Soviet Union was. Also, by creating the illusion of peace between them, he assured that the Soviet Union wouldn't attack Germany, which the USSR should have also realized, because when Hitler did attack they wouldn't be prepared at all. Secondly, it's difficult to say whether the US would have officially joined the war if Pearl Harbor hadn't been attacked. It's perfectly plausible that they would have; they were already indirectly involved because of wartime trade, so why not join, if their "allies" (those they were aiding) started losing? Then again, maybe they would have just continued supplying behind the scenes for the rest of the war. And then maybe the war would have turned out differently. Lastly, I agree that war leaders had realized that WWI had not been a successful application of the new war technology; by WWII, they had had time to think about what went wrong in WWI and what they could have done differently to make the new technology more successful, and that's what they did in WWII - they finally applied the technology so it could achieve its full potential and actually play a part in determining who won the war rather than just creating this huge stalemate.
ReplyDeleteFirstly Hitler always had that strong hate toward the Soviet Union especially Stalin. However I remember reading somewhere that the Soviet Union was planning to attack Germany anyways regardless of the pact they made so Hitler probably had no choice but to attack Germany. This all together was a huge turning point of the war since Germany's largest forces were concentrated in Russia and their defeat was the main cause of Germany's downfall. Second the United States would have entered the war even if Japan didn't attack. Now if what Mr. Geary is saying that Japan was completely staying neutral to the whole war or if they didn't just attack Pearl Harbor, Japan was still expanding so we would have still had an conflict with them over territory in the Pacific. Third technology defiantly had an impact between WWI and WWII. The weapons finally became more enhanced to actually make a difference in the fight as opposed to WWI where they had new technology that wasn't really developed enough to make a difference. Or if the technology was developed enough to make a difference there wasn't alot of it. The powers had more advanced tanks in great quantities and improved weaponry such as submachine guns and automatic rifles as opposed to bolt action ones.
ReplyDeleteI think Alex's point about Hitler's hatred towards the Soviet Union is important. For years before World War 2 Hitler had talked about the inevitability of conflict between the opposing ideologies of communism and fascism and of the opposing races of Germanic and Slavic people. Essentially, World War 2 was a power grab for Germany and he definitely would not have chosen to keep the Soviet Union out of it. Provided with the opportunity to prove the superiority of both his race and his political views over one of the world's largest powers, Hitler would not pass it up, so I think, attacking the Soviet Union was probably part of the game plan early on. Although the United States did enter World War 2 as a direct result of Pearl Harbor, and did not initially declare war on Germany, I think that eventually they still would have had to enter the war. The United States was already growing into its image as the big meddler or protector, whichever one fit the circumstance, and the world would have expected them to interfere when Germany started to get really out of control. Without the war in the Pacific the United States could have stayed out of the war for a while, but not forever.
ReplyDeleteHitler attacked Russia because the Russians moving on his source of oil. Opening up a second front in Russia was the turning point of the war in my opinion. Once the German forces were spread across two fronts, it became difficult for Hitler to do what he wanted. I believe the U.S. would have joined WWII regardless of Pearl Harbor. The U.S. wanted to join the war and Roosevelt just needed a reason to do so. Pearl Harbor fit the bill. technology caused WWI and WWII to be very different. In WWII, tanks and aircraft were much more useful. WWII was not a trench conflict like WWI.
ReplyDeleteFirst off I'd like to talk about the last question since it hasn't been discussed much. WWI and WWII were vastly different and this was vastly because of advances in technology. In the beginning of the war the Germans and the Axis powers had a huge advantage because they were ahead in technology. They used their air force and tanks to develop Blitzkreig, a whole new type of warfare that had never been seen before.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the U.S. entering the war, I think it was pretty close to inevitable (I know, I know we had that whole discussion about how history isn't inevitable, but on the day before Pearl Harbor it was pretty close) which is why I think the Japanese did it. No one wants to create more enemies for themselves during a war, so Japan must have believed that the U.S. was already their enemy, so they wanted to cut them off before we could attack them. This is strong evidence of how deeply involved the United States was in the war before Pearl Harbor.
One of Hitlers objectives at the beginning of the war was avoiding a two-front war yes, but that simply means he doesn't want to fight them at the same time. It's clear looking back that Hitler always intended to attack the Soviet Union, but he vastly underestimated the amount of force it would take to do so and how much time he had to spare to finish with the Western front before moving to the Eastern. I think that the fact that Hitler had to stretch the Germans thin to cover both fronts was a bit of a turning point simply because is stressed the forces almost to the breaking point.
In contrast to WWI, I think everyone in the war did their best to avoid stalemates. Germany avoided trench warfare and relied heavily on her "Luftwaffe" and Panzer tanks. While strong on the Western front, Germany had little to worry about on the Eastern front because of the secret agreement with the USSR. Countries were taken in matters of weeks! Poland didn't last long, France either. This all made the war much more intensified because Germany gained many advantages through taking over countries (ex. France provided access to Atlantic, Great Britain).
ReplyDeleteMaybe Germany began to see Soviet Russia as a competitor. Hitler could have attacked the USSR because as it took over more and more countries (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland) Hitler was losing potential German territory. It wasn't until exactly one year after France surrendered that Hitler sent out to invade the Soviet Union.
I think that Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor was the excuse that Roosevelt was looking for to join the war. I think it was crucial to the United States joining, but since it "broke the policy of neutrality", the U.S. had reason to retaliate. The U.S. was a great help to Great Britain before the policy of neutrality had even ended. Trade goods were sent to Britain continually, and not to Germany because of a British blockade. Would the United States would have joined the war given that there were no action in the Pacific? I believe so. The United States continued to support Great Britain to the point where the U.S. was receiving territories from Britain. Roosevelt deeply opposed Nazism and Fascism and knew that something had to be done about it. Simply having Japan attack Pearl Harbor, though, was the answer the United States' population needed at the time, because they had not yet been convinced on the importance of the United States' effort in the war.
Why Hitler attacked Russia could be as simple as they were next on the list. He already conquered Poland, France and more or less Britain. This left the USSR to be the next major power. As for if this was the turning point of the war I have to agree with Melissa in that it was more the act of not fully conquering the British then attacking the USSR that created a turning point.
ReplyDeleteI think the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a nice reason for the US to get involved like Remington said.
War evolved in that more people can now die faster. New weapons and ways of killing. The results were a more destroyed world.