Main Historical Issues - Assignment Example

History s School Part A: The Second World War wouldn’t have been a success on the hands of the victors if the war hadn’t seena turning point on the Eastern front. Soviet-German war is interpreted by different historians in different ways which creates a contradiction over which exactly was the turning point of the war. A few historians consider 1942 as an important period as the Soviets were able to turn the tables by countering the Axis forces. This was the first time since the war had started that the war wasn’t turning out to be exactly in the favor of the Germans. However, according to other historians, this was just the beginning and not the turning point. It wasn’t until 1943 that the Red Army was able to push the Soviets back to a considerable level, thus this was the phase which should be marked for its significance as the turning point. Nonetheless, one segment of historians consider 1944 as the turning point of the war since it wasn’t until then that victory was assured to the Red Army on the Eastern front. Though the German Army was technically victorious until 1942 and even 1943, as the German army was achieving all its objectives until then and they were acquiring victories after victories. All their operations were turning out to be successful and the German forces were able to penetrate deep onto the Eastern front. However, a deeper analysis indicates that though there is no second opinion about the success rate only enhancing as the army was progressing still the German army had lot strategic depth back in 1942. According to many historians, even the closest advisors to Hitler for instance, Dr. Fitz Todt had advised him that the planning isn’t sufficient enough and the objectives aren’t as tangible as they should be. This eventually led towards the lack of motivation for the German Army, as they lost track and started losing after some time. Also, they had underestimated the Red Army and once the Red Army changed their strategies they were able to achieve victory slowly and gradually. Considering the above analysis, the only rational approach would be to perceive that the turning point of the war should be acclaimed as 1942. To justify this position it is also important to study 1941 from a bird`s eye view as well, so that the period can be contrasted with 1941. 1941 is marked by the period when Germany deployed the strategic initiatives to conquer Soviet Union where they did well as they started off. The most significant operation of the time was the operation Barbarossa; however operation Blau is also important in this context. These were the operations where German forces were strictly at the offensive committed to take over the territories marked, and breaking the peace agreement. Since the German army was able to cause massive destruction during this period, taking over various territories thus Soviets had little options. However, Red Army was still able to protect the fronts on Moscow and Leningrad where they stopped the forces from entering. Thus, no milestones were reached in 1941 as the Red Army was still on the defensive as their action was limited. Part B: While analyzing and reinterpreting the Second World War, many historians elaborate on the ongoing rivalry between Montgomery and Patton, however these illustrations are merely exaggerations of the stories on the war fronts. Both Generals were the best ones on land committed to the task of defeating the Germans at any cost. A rivalry on the ideological front was however apparent between the two Generals as Montgomery was of the view that the best approach is to take a defensive front while Patton was for the offensive strategies. Montgomery was a senior officer with a considerably high rank, and he acclaimed Patton for his enthusiasm and his skills which eventually led towards victory. However, when both of them were on board to invade Sicily there was a confrontation seen though hidden in character. Patton took the charge of the place which was assigned to Montgomery at Sicily and took action as he felt that Montgomery was quite slow in action and his strategy would prove to be very costly in the long run. Apart from this incident, there were no instances of direct rivalries on the war front thus it is merely an exaggeration to portray their ideological differences as rivalries. Part C: Yalta Conference also known as the Crimea Conference was held in 1945 where all three leaders of the victor states i.e. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Joseph Stalin and Churchill met to propose their own positions over the world structure in the post war period. All three leaders had their own distinct positions and visions about the post war period, where all three of them wanted to certain changes as well as their own dominance over the systems. Franklin D. Roosevelt attended the Yalta Conference with the agenda of seeking Soviet support over the U.S Pacific front. At the Pacific, U.S was still in a state of war against Japan thus they were looking forward to Soviet assistance, i.e. the support of the Red Army to invade Japan. Stalin agreed over entering Japan within three months after the German war would be over, only at the condition that US would recognize the Mongolian independence from China. As for Stalin, his role in the conference was limited to acquiring their sphere of influence over the Eastern Europe as well as the Central Europe. Poland was however top on the agenda as German had undertaken Poland as the front to attack Soviet Union and they had reservation as future attacks could also take place from the same front. Thus, Stalin put forth his reservations regarding border agreements and influence over the region in the conference. The most distinct and significant role was however played by Sir Winston Churchill as he attended the conference with the expectations of reforms in his mind. He wanted to promote the ideals of democracy and liberation, also institutionalization and cooperation to promote world peace. He also advocated for democracy and free elections in the Europe where these were absent. Also, he wanted to resolve the border crises by virtue of ideals of democracy and liberation, also self determination. References: "Holocaust History." World War II in Eastern Europe, 1942-1945. Web. 01 May 2012. http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005186 Ambrose, Stephen E. The Good Fight: How World War Ii Was Won. New York: Atheneum Books for Young Readers, 2001. Print. Farago, Ladislas. Patton: Ordeal and Triumph / by Ladislas Farago. New York: Ivan Obolensky, 1963. Print. Hamilton, Nigel. Montgomery: D-day Commander. Washington, D.C: Potomac Books, 2007. Print Fenno, Richard F. The Yalta Conference. Boston: Heath, 1955. Print Read More