Which of these WWII statements are true?

[swing_voter]

1. President Franklin D. Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor in advance​

2. Erwin Rommel a.k.a. “the Desert Fox” was the greatest German general of all time​

3. Hitler was solely to blame for the German defeat in World War II​

4. Japan could have won World War II, if only the Japanese had bombed the oil depots at Pearl Harbor in addition to the ships​

5. There was a turning point in World War II​

Spoiler: Spoilers!

The Biggest Myths About WWII, According to a Historian

TIME asked the Senior Historian at the National World War II Museum which myths he has spent the most time debunking

time.com

 

[ASHES]

RE: 4, I always thought the primary targets were the carriers and battleships, it was just bad luck and poor intelligence that the carriers weren't there and they didn't severely limit American projection of power in the Pacific.

 

[Jredbaron96]

1. President Franklin D. Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor in advance​

There's no evidence he did.

2. Erwin Rommel a.k.a. “the Desert Fox” was the greatest German general of all time​

Not even close.

3. Hitler was solely to blame for the German defeat in World War II​

Lion's share perhaps, but not solely.

4. Japan could have won World War II, if only the Japanese had bombed the oil depots at Pearl Harbor in addition to the ships​

There was quite literally no way for Japan to win the war in the Pacific after they bombed Pearl Harbor.

5. There was a turning point in World War II​

Spoiler: Spoilers!

The Biggest Myths About WWII, According to a Historian

TIME asked the Senior Historian at the National World War II Museum which myths he has spent the most time debunking

time.com

There was probably, but discerning when exactly it was would be difficult. You could make the argument for any number of scenarios.

 

[Peter]

Pearl Harbour did have a British designed radar system but chose to ignore the warning as at the time it was a brand new system and they felt the harbour was safe from enemy attack. I don't feel this was a malicious decision as I really don't think anyone wanted US service people to die it was just a mistake as the radar system wasn't at the time 100% reliable or trusted.

 

[Ringo Stalin]

5. There was a turning point in World War II​

Stalingrad beginning of turning point, Battle of the Kursk - end of turning point of the war. Tide of the war turn to west.

Some "historians" would say anything that would not recognize the decisive role of the USSR in the victory over nazism...

 

[Redress]

5. There was a turning point in World War II​

I would argue that there was in fact turning points in WW2, but note the plural there. There was no singular one, but a series of turning points as momentum shifted. An incomplete list:

1. Germany's slow and inevitably falling behind schedule during Barbarossa
2. Midway
3. Guadalcanal
4. Operation Torch
5. Normandy

Each had a major impact on changing the direction of the war, and paved the way for the inevitable Axis loss.

Note on Rommel: while he was not the best German general in WW2(Guderian was pretty clearly), he was pretty damn good. He was kinda the German version of Patton, brilliant, but unwilling to either pay attention or share control with people able to do what they could not(logistics for both).

 

[Ringo Stalin]

1. Germany's slow and inevitably falling behind schedule during Barbarossa
2. Midway
3. Guadalcanal
4. Operation Torch
5. Normandy

1. Why is that? General Frost, of course?
2. Victory in a second-rate theater of war.
3. Look at the #2
4. Look at #3
5. Germany is already on the road to defeat. The Western Front attracted a smaller number of German forces and served as an aid to the main force of the anti-Hitler coalition-the USSR

 

[Jredbaron96]

while he was not the best German general in WW2(Guderian was pretty clearly),

Can't say I would agree. Guderian's big moment outside Moscow ended in complete failure at the hands of a numerically inferior Soviet force and it ended up costing him his command.

 

[swing_voter]

They say 90% of war is logistics.

Rommel was shit with logistics.

 

[swing_voter]

RE: 4, I always thought the primary targets were the carriers and battleships, it was just bad luck and poor intelligence that the carriers weren't there and they didn't severely limit American projection of power in the Pacific.

It wasn't a very good plan all around.

Pearl Harbor is shallow. Most of the battleships that were sank were quickly raised and made ready for war.

 

[Chagos]

1. President Franklin D. Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor in advance​

2. Erwin Rommel a.k.a. “the Desert Fox” was the greatest German general of all time​

3. Hitler was solely to blame for the German defeat in World War II​

4. Japan could have won World War II, if only the Japanese had bombed the oil depots at Pearl Harbor in addition to the ships​

5. There was a turning point in World War II​

Spoiler: Spoilers!

The Biggest Myths About WWII, According to a Historian

TIME asked the Senior Historian at the National World War II Museum which myths he has spent the most time debunking

time.com

None, with the exception of No. 5.

 

[Rexedgar]

There's no evidence he did.

There are enough questions regarding 7DEC to argue that maybe there was some fore knowledge.

Not even close.



Lion's share perhaps, but not solely.



There was quite literally no way for Japan to win the war in the Pacific after they bombed Pearl Harbor.



There was probably, but discerning when exactly it was would be difficult. You could make the argument for any number of scenarios.

 

[Chagos]

They say 90% of war is logistics.

Rommel was shit with logistics.

To be good with logistics you need stuff to apply them to.

Rommel barely had that in N. Africa and by the time he took over command of the Atlantic defenses, Germany had screwed itself in the East.

 

[Rogue Valley]

As someone else stated, there were "turning points" in WWII, but no one singular turning point.

 

[maxparrish]

I would argue that there was in fact turning points in WW2, but note the plural there. There was no singular one, but a series of turning points as momentum shifted. An incomplete list:

1. Germany's slow and inevitably falling behind schedule during Barbarossa
2. Midway
3. Guadalcanal
4. Operation Torch
5. Normandy

Each had a major impact on changing the direction of the war, and paved the way for the inevitable Axis loss.

Note on Rommel: while he was not the best German general in WW2(Guderian was pretty clearly), he was pretty damn good. He was kinda the German version of Patton, brilliant, but unwilling to either pay attention or share control with people able to do what they could not(logistics for both).

As far a German generalship, at least in WII, I don't believe there is a clear winner for "the greatest". However Guderian's dismissal in December of 1941 did not permit enough to time assess his field generalship.

However, were I to pick it would Erich von Manstein, the brain behind the 1940 plan to attack through the Ardennes. Like Rommel, von Manstein was a master on the offense but unlike Rommel his mastery of the defense was equally great.

von Manstein's brilliance was demonstrated on the eastern front, most famously in his stunning execution of the backhand blow that blunted and finally checked the Soviet breakthough in 1942. It is generally conceded that had Hitler not refused to approve von Manstein's full plan, his offense would have shattered the Soviet Southern Front as a whole.

It is not surprising that he rose through the ranks and that eventually he was supported by eastern front generals to become the full and exclusive commander of that front...something Hitler would never tolerate.

 

[Tigerace117]

1. Why is that? General Frost, of course?
2. Victory in a second-rate theater of war.
3. Look at the #2
4. Look at #3
5. Germany is already on the road to defeat. The Western Front attracted a smaller number of German forces and served as an aid to the main force of the anti-Hitler coalition-the USSR

The Pacific was anything but “second rate”.

 

[Chagos]

Can't say I would agree. Guderian's big moment outside Moscow ended in complete failure at the hands of a numerically inferior Soviet force and it ended up costing him his command.

From what I learned I'd say that he lost his command due to differences with Hitler, when he tried to persuade him to give up the attack on Moscow (so as to retreat to more easily defensible positions) on account of the desolate (by then) state of German forces, the (also by then) "stuttering" German supply lines (caused by the winter) and subsequently having been ground to a halt at Tula.

He saw impending Russian counter-offensives forming early on and suspected that by these the Germans would get into trouble.

 

[Jredbaron96]

From what I learned I'd say that he lost his command due to differences with Hitler, when he tried to persuade him to give up the attack on Moscow (so as to retreat to more easily defensible positions) on account of the desolate (by then) state of German forces, the (also by then) "stuttering" German supply lines (caused by the winter) and subsequently having been ground to a halt at Tula.

He saw impending Russian counter-offensives forming early on and suspected that by these the Germans would get into trouble.

Ironically, this was an area where Hitler was right (for the wrong reasons). Given the speed of the Soviet counter-attack and the state of the German armed forces, attempting to withdraw to more defensible terrain would have likely resulted in the Germans being caught in the open when the Soviets unleashed their attack.

You are correct though; Guderian's disagreement with Hitler resulted in him losing his command, but the fact that he had just been resoundingly defeated by a smaller Soviet force did not help matters. I am personally of the opinion that while Guderian was a very compelling theorist and planner, his actual command skills on the battlefield were noticeably lacking compared to some of his peers and opponents.

 

[WillyPete]

For me the major turning point in WWII is a toss-up between Germany invading the USSR, or the US entering the war.

The damage to Germany was done before Stalingrad, just by opening a new and (theoretically) optional front. Hitler got greedy and never smartened up (and thank goodness.)

And (debatably) after the U.S. entered the war the outcome was set based on raw logistics.

And the events are related, what with all the equipment we sent to our allies.

 

[Peter King]

1. President Franklin D. Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor in advance​

2. Erwin Rommel a.k.a. “the Desert Fox” was the greatest German general of all time​

3. Hitler was solely to blame for the German defeat in World War II​

4. Japan could have won World War II, if only the Japanese had bombed the oil depots at Pearl Harbor in addition to the ships​

5. There was a turning point in World War II​

Spoiler: Spoilers!

The Biggest Myths About WWII, According to a Historian

TIME asked the Senior Historian at the National World War II Museum which myths he has spent the most time debunking

time.com

Personally I think there was a turning point on 3 fronts, but there was a turning point.

the first turning point was in Africa when the British held the Germans at El Alamein

the second turning point on in the European theater was the German defeat at Stalingrad

the third turning point was IMHO, the battle at Guadalcanal.

 

[Chagos]

Ironically, this was an area where Hitler was right (for the wrong reasons). Given the speed of the Soviet counter-attack and the state of the German armed forces, attempting to withdraw to more defensible terrain would have likely resulted in the Germans being caught in the open when the Soviets unleashed their attack.

You are correct though; Guderian's disagreement with Hitler resulted in him losing his command, but the fact that he had just been resoundingly defeated by a smaller Soviet force did not help matters. I am personally of the opinion that while Guderian was a very compelling theorist and planner, his actual command skills on the battlefield were noticeably lacking compared to some of his peers and opponents.

I'd agree that his coming to fame in the French campaign was down to both his recklessness and pure luck.

Recklessness in that he left the flanks of his rapidly advancing Panzer troops (in the rush to the Channel) dangerously exposed and, in fact, quite aware of that danger, chose to ignore it. Even getting himself fired for that but re-instated again right away,

Luck in that the utterly inept French High Command (even before the Panzers' helter-skelter run) had demolished French fighting forces into such a state of total disarray, that it became totally impossible for them to take advantage of the Germans exposure. Chasing about like demented hens as they by then were.

Luck was also on the side of the British Expeditionary Force, in that Hitler got cold feet (several times) and ordered a couple of halts.

Preventing the total defeat of the Brits at Dunkerque by enabling their evacuation.

Lot of gambling going on at the time on the German side, some (Guderian, Rommel and others) winning and at least one
(the Greatest Field Master of All Times) playing the win away again.

 

[Chagos]

Personally I think there was a turning point on 3 fronts, but there was a turning point.

the first turning point was in Africa when the British held the Germans at El Alamein

The "African theatre" and everything that went on there has been widely over-estimated in any decisiveness for the outcome of the whole war.

the second turning point on in the European theater was the German defeat at Stalingrad

Of far greater relevance, I'd agree.

the third turning point was IMHO, the battle at Guadalcanal.

Funny how Midway has found no mention so far.

 

[Peter King]

The "African theatre" and everything that went on there has been widely over-estimated in any decisiveness for the outcome of the whole war.


Of far greater relevance, I'd agree.

Funny how Midway has found no mention so far.

For me it was a toss up between Midway and Guadalcanal, but Midway was still the US being on the defense just trying to hold back the Japanese, the battle of Guadalcanal was the first real offensive attack the US undertook and defeated both Japanese soldiers and the navy.

Midway was both US excellence and a good deal of luck for those planes to spot the Japanese fleet, it was decisive but Japan could still hold it's positions in the Pacific. From Guadalcanal onward the Japanese could no longer claim it's superiority and undefeated status.

And I disagree with you on the African theater, if Rommel would have been able to occupy the Suez canal and the oil fields of the Middle East, Germany would have been able to force much longer supply routes for the UK and almost limitless access to fuel/oil.

 

[Jredbaron96]

The moment Japan bombed Pearl Harbor it basically guaranteed its defeat against the USA. If there was a decisive moment for the Pacific theater, it was that.

 

[Peter]

I'm surprised and saddened that nobody has said The Battle of Britain was a turning point.
It was our finest hour.