Which of these WWII statements are true?

[Chagos]

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.

At Midway the Japanese lost 4 of their (total) 6 air craft carriers and an irreplaceable number of planes and, more importantly, pilots.

By these heavy losses they were so weakened that the initiative was no longer theirs, now having to resort to defensive actions against ever strengthening US forces.

Without Midway the US taking Gudalcanal would have been nigh impossible.

No, the Japanese were unable to hold their positions in the Pacific after Midway.

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.

Rommel didn't have a chance in hell of ever reaching Suez.

He was outnumbered both in men and material at Tobruk in both battles already, a combination of inept strategy and leadership on the enemy side and admittedly superior tactics on his side having given whatever success altogether.

 

[Chagos]

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

I won't belittle the "fineness" of the hour but the Battle of Britain was not a decisive turning point of WWII. Britain having won it posed no danger to the Nazis in the overall picture.

 

[Peter King]

At Midway the Japanese lost 4 of their (total) 6 air craft carriers and an irreplaceable number of planes and, more importantly, pilots.

By these heavy losses they were so weakened that the initiative was no longer theirs, now having to resort to defensive actions against ever strengthening US forces.

Without Midway the US taking Gudalcanal would have been nigh impossible.

No, the Japanese were unable to hold their positions in the Pacific after Midway.

Rommel didn't have a chance in hell of ever reaching Suez.

He was outnumbered both in men and material at Tobruk in both battles already, a combination of inept strategy and leadership on the enemy side and admittedly superior tactics on his side having given whatever success altogether.

The problem for the Africa campaign is that Germany invaded Russia, if 1/5th of the material and men that were sent to Russia had been deployed in Africa, they would have reached Suez with ease. But the Germans were outnumbered by the ridiculously weak Italians.

 

[Peter King]

I won't belittle the "fineness" of the hour but the Battle of Britain was not a decisive turning point of WWII. Britain having won it posed no danger to the Nazis in the overall picture.

I agree, this was more prestige and not much more. Britain would have been sitting there twiddling it's thumbs for many many many years if Hitler had not invaded Russia. The troops and the material he burned through there was just the end of the 1000 year empire Hitler had planned.

 

[Chagos]

The problem for the Africa campaign is that Germany invaded Russia, if 1/5th of the material and men that were sent to Russia had been deployed in Africa, they would have reached Suez with ease. But the Germans were outnumbered by the ridiculously weak Italians.

The problem was, least that's how I see it, the megalomania of Mussolini having caused the Italians to attack the Brits.

Thus dragging in German forces that had to bail them out.

Same as in Greece when the attacking Italians couldn't even manage that properly.

The opportunity to vanquish spear-bearing peasants with machine guns and poison gas from planes, for effective combat training doth not make.

With an ally like that one the Nazis really didn't need to make any more enemies.

 

[maxparrish]

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.

I've never found a satisfactory answer to several points that relate to your view.

First, it would seem unlikely that overland supply routes to Iran could come near to providing Axis forces with enough strength to take the oil fields.
Second, the Germans would have no way to export the oil - no naval superiority nor pipelines back to European refineries.
Three, the US could supply all the oil the UK needed (and did so in large part).
Four, I have been unable to find any evidence that the Mediterranean was used by GB as a convoy system back to the UK for oil or other raw materials. If not it didn't matter so much if Rommel had cut the Suez canal.

 

[maxparrish]

The problem was, least that's how I see it, the megalomania of Mussolini having caused the Italians to attack the Brits.

Thus dragging in German forces that had to bail them out.
Same as in Greece when the attacking Italians couldn't even manage that properly.
The opportunity to vanquish spear-bearing peasants with machine guns and poison gas from planes, for effective combat training doth not make.

With an ally like that one the Nazis really didn't need to make any more enemies.

Exactly. Italy and the newly occupied areas of the Balkans ate into the limited supplies of oil that Germany had access to. Had Italy remained neutral it, along with Balkans, would have bought oil elsewhere.

And the last thing Germany needed was to waste troops in occupying territory it didn't need or want...but had because of Italian adventurism.

 

[Fishking]

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

1. False.
2. Possible but opinion
3. Not sure if Germany wins but attacking Russia definitely lost it for them.
4. Mostly just needed to the get aircraft carriers. They didn't.
5. The turning point of the war happened before D-day, at the battle of Kursk. Or you could say Pearl Harbor was the turning point as it brought a reluctant U.S. in.

 

[Chagos]

I've never found a satisfactory answer to several points that relate to your view.

First, it would seem unlikely that overland supply routes to Iran could come near to providing Axis forces with enough strength to take the oil fields.
Second, the Germans would have no way to export the oil - no naval superiority nor pipelines back to European refineries.
Three, the US could supply all the oil the UK needed (and did so in large part).
Four, I have been unable to find any evidence that the Mediterranean was used by GB as a convoy system back to the UK for oil or other raw materials. If not it didn't matter so much if Rommel had cut the Suez canal.

The idea was, I suppose, to vanquish any land forces that might threaten the flanks of Hitler's overland push for the Caspian.

Rail transport, well out of reach of the British Navy, would have sufficed to give Germany the fuel it lacked so desperately. He wasn't pushing for Iran and certainly not for the Gulf states (which weren't producing much oil anyway at the time) but for Baku.

In addition, control of the Canal would have prohibited ANY British shipping from interfering in the Med from that direction (Egypt).

But, as I already pointed out, Rommel didn't have a snowball's chance in Hades of subduing the Brits in Egypt anyway.

 

[Fishking]

2. Victory in a second-rate theater of war.

I don't know...Japan sure kicked Russia's ass in a sea battle. I think people underplay Japan's power and fighting capabilities because there isn't as much attention given to it.

 

[Fishking]

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.

It was actually an outstanding plan. It was the best they could do, by far. Yamamoto didn't think we had a chance and didn't want to do it. He came up with the best they had.

 

[maxparrish]

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

As the term "turning point" is used in this thread, you are correct. Some turning points are when a country starts winning...but other turning point are when a country stops losing.

For the Allies in the pacific, the "stop losing" part was Midway. For a half year the Japanese had trounced every force they engaged...Australian, Dutch, British, and American. It was clear their men, arms, planes, and tactics were superior to the allies. Midway exposed the first weakness in the Japanese Navy, their poor understanding of the power of Allied code breaking. That, combined with Nimitz's beautifully constructed plan, as well as some huge luck, stopped the Japanese.

And the Battle of Britain was also a kind of turning point; the first battle the Germans lost in WWII, which saved GB. In spite of a massive German air force with excellent planes and pilots, the heroic RAF and their support elements hung on - due in no small part to Dowding, and underappreciated commander.

Another turning point was the battle of the Atlantic, a very sudden and dramatic turn around in 1943 that quashed the German U-Boat threat.

 

[maxparrish]

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.

An interesting what if. If GB had accepted Hitlers peace offer and the US never entered the war. Would the outcome on the eastern front have been different?

 

[WillyPete]

An interesting what if. If GB had accepted Hitlers peace offer and the US never entered the war. Would the outcome on the eastern front have been different?

It surely would have made things harder for the Russians, anyhow. Nothing stopping Japan from joining in, either.

I can't imagine the U.S. standing by through all that.

 

[maxparrish]

It surely would have made things harder for the Russians, anyhow. Nothing stopping Japan from joining in, either.

I can't imagine the U.S. standing by through all that.

Well...that is hard to say. Japan would likely have gone to war against GB, Dutch, commonwealth, and the US with GB able to focus solely on Japan. Not sure if there were any other way to obtain oil EXCEPT thru the Dutch East Indies.

US really wouldn't have a good reason, or staging area, to fight the Germans if GB had retained it's empire. And I wonder if the allies would have even given Stalin aide under such circumstances.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

I should think that awakening a sleeping giant would be a contender as far as turning points go.

 

[Peter King]

The problem was, least that's how I see it, the megalomania of Mussolini having caused the Italians to attack the Brits.

Thus dragging in German forces that had to bail them out.

Same as in Greece when the attacking Italians couldn't even manage that properly.

The opportunity to vanquish spear-bearing peasants with machine guns and poison gas from planes, for effective combat training doth not make.

With an ally like that one the Nazis really didn't need to make any more enemies.

Wasn't it the Italian problems in Libya that made the Germans sent Erwin Rommel and his Africa corps? The British were pounding the Italians hard and thus Hitler sent troops to Africa.

 

[Fabiusbile]

I honestly do not like such pathos-a turning point... however, the importance of certain events was certainly great.
At the same time, I believe that today the goals of Japan in the war are interpreted absolutely fantastically. The Japanese did not intend to occupy the United States, for this they simply did not have any military or even human resources, their goals were prosaic, to inflict a number of major naval defeats on the Americans and force them to sign a peace treaty beneficial to the Japanese. They needed to get the Americans out of the war so that they would stop supplying the USSR and Britain, which would ensure that the alliance of Italy, Germany and Japan would win the war.
Therefore, on the front of the war with Japan, much more important events are the Battle of Midway, the battle in the Coral Sea...

 

[Chagos]

Wasn't it the Italian problems in Libya that made the Germans sent Erwin Rommel and his Africa corps? The British were pounding the Italians hard and thus Hitler sent troops to Africa.

That's actually what I said.

 

[Peter King]

That's actually what I said.

I am pretty sure though that after Italy declared war on Britain, it was the British who initiated armed combat with the Italians. Just days after the declaration British forces went into Libya.

 

[Chagos]

An interesting what if. If GB had accepted Hitlers peace offer and the US never entered the war. Would the outcome on the eastern front have been different?

Yeah, what-ifs are always fun.

A determining factor on the Eastern front was the preparedness of both sides for sacrifice. IOW how many more of "yours" can you persuade (manipulate, bully, etc.) to die than your opponent can persuade his? Even with Russia having finally won, the casualty rate was already seven Russians to one German in the end.

Seeing that the Russians were well aware of capitulation resulting in wholesale "liquidation" of vast swaths of Russia and its people, one may well assume that the prospect of a ratio of, for instance, double that (14 Soviets to 1 German) would not have made the Russians take it lying down either.

Stalingrad is an exemplifying example, seeing how Russian casualties were considerably higher than German ones.

VietNam, for that matter, is another one, even where I am in no way comparing (least of all in ideology) GI forces to the Germans of WWII.

 

[Chagos]

I am pretty sure though that after Italy declared war on Britain, it was the British who initiated armed combat with the Italians. Just days after the declaration British forces went into Libya.

True.

That sort of thing happens when you declare war on somebody.

Nevertheless, it was all a pretty stupid move by the Italians, seeing how they had barely managed to suppress their own "locals" in Libya.

 

[Quag]

3 Because if he hadnt started the war then Germany could not have lost
5 Yeah but as others said there could be lots of turning points

 

[Peter King]

True.

That sort of thing happens when you declare war on somebody.

Nevertheless, it was all a pretty stupid move by the Italians, seeing how they had barely managed to suppress their own "locals" in Libya.

Or in Ethiopia, they were really performing abysmally against barely armed people.

 

[swing_voter]

At Midway the Japanese lost 4 of their (total) 6 air craft carriers and an irreplaceable number of planes and, more importantly, pilots.

By these heavy losses they were so weakened that the initiative was no longer theirs, now having to resort to defensive actions against ever strengthening US forces.

Without Midway the US taking Gudalcanal would have been nigh impossible.

No, the Japanese were unable to hold their positions in the Pacific after Midway.

Rommel didn't have a chance in hell of ever reaching Suez.

He was outnumbered both in men and material at Tobruk in both battles already, a combination of inept strategy and leadership on the enemy side and admittedly superior tactics on his side having given whatever success altogether.

Yes, I think Midway was the turning point in the Pacific, Kursk was the turning point for the European theater.


By turning point, I mean when one side had hope of winning but their hopes were dashed after they lost the battle. The Japanese had hopes of winning after Pearl Harbor and the Germans had hopes of winning after Stalingrad.




.