The turningpoint of WWII

[The 3rd Triumvirate]

I would have to say D-Day. The opening of a western front did take pressure of the USSR as well as finally giving the allies a foothold in Fortress Europe.

[Jan Kazimierz]

Originally posted by Rapax+Feb 22 2005, 10:59 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td> (Rapax @ Feb 22 2005, 10:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Byzantium@Feb 22 2005, 04:48 AM
The main goal of the German army in Russia was not the capture of Moscow but the destruction of her armies in the field as it had been in all their campaigns up til then.

Which is exactly what was the mistake. [/b][/quote]
Wrong&#33;

There certainly would not have been a russian victory and a normandy invasion if britain was conquered. There would not be a american involvement in the war in europe if england was defeated. There would be no VE for the allies if the german onslaught wouldnt have been stopped in the skies above kent. The battle of britain was crucial.

But there wouldn&#39;t be a RAF victory if churchill hadn&#39;t rallied the UK single-handedly. There wouldn&#39;t most probably be a british victory even with churchill if hitler and goering had listent to Erhard Milch ( who proposed to take england by starting an all-out attack with air force, paratroops and amphibious landing, directly while dunkirk was happening)

Even further&#33; There wouldnt be a blitzkrieg if frenchman had better morale&#33;

So nice to talk about all later battles, but the crucial points where made in the beginning. But after all, its the chain of events, and not ONE point wich leads to the outcome of the war

Vale,
Kazimierz

[Byzantium]

I agree with a lot of your points Jan.

The battle of Britain was certainly a very important victory and left Hitler in the same position as Napolean when he was also left champing at the bit at the English channel which casued their eyes to then look East.However despite this loss the Germans were still in a position to contain the British to the British Isles and though Britain was overcoming her earlier weaknesses were in no position then or in any foreseeable future able to think about mounting a direct attack on the German held mainland.

In my opinion the turning point for both the Russians and Germany was at Stalingrad.

The entry of America into the war was of huge significance though from the point of view of her manafacturing and manpower resources plus the supplies she could provide and her entry also enabled the possibility of opening up a second front where as before it was inconcievable.

The turning point then is probably different depending on what nation you are talking about.

For Britain the battle of Britain as it removed the possibility of an immediate invasion when it would have been unable to replulse it plus the entry of America into the war and for Germany and Russia i would say Stalingrad.

[S.P.Q.R.]

I cannot see to a "one" turning point. I ceranly see Stalingrad as the first. also because the decisions aftermath. If Hitler was a little bit smart he would join the allies as Churchill asked him and kick all toghter the soviets and their illusionary politics...so we had a world without commies&#33; :grin

Then the second turning point was the battle of the Midways...or maybe Iwo Jima that because started the process to end the war also in the Pacific against the last enemy.

[Rapax]

Originally posted by S.P.Q.R.@Mar 1 2005, 07:49 PM
Then the second turning point was the battle of the Midways...or maybe Iwo Jima that because started the process to end the war also in the Pacific against the last enemy.

Why Iwo Jima? At the point the americans were already on the road to victory, what was turned at Iwo Jima?

[S.P.Q.R.]

Dear Rapax is good to hear from you again, and I&#39;m glad that you keep ypur sharp eye on these forums...yes Iwo Jima was not that "turning"...but maybe you agree about the Midway, concerning the Pacific Front.

[Maharbal]

The turning point of World War II in the European theatre, would have to be when Hitler diverted much of Army Group Centers Panzer strength to Army Group South, during Operation Barbarossa. Even with this loss of strength, Army Group Center came within 10miles of Moscow itself, so surely if Hitler had not diverted much of Army Group Center&#39;s Panzer strength to the South, Moscow would have fallen. The fall of Moscow would have been such a severe blow to Russian morale, that the war on the Eastern Front would have quickly ended soon after.

[Owain_Glyndwr]

I suppose the Americans were never on the road to defeat, so there was no turning point in the pacific. However, the great victory at Midway definetly sped up the American victory. Random fact again, it is said that gamers at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, have many times replayed the battle of Midway, but have never been able to produce an American victory, after all, how could they duplicate the luck of the american dive-bombers, swooping down on the Japanese carriers when all planes were down for refueling?

[Bombay211]

I would have to say that the turning point was at the battle of Stalingrad where the russians captured the german 6th army and finished off any more german advances in the soviet union. it wasnt really russian soldiers that beat the germans but the bad german supply lines and the russian winter. also hitler was so set on capturing Stalingrad and kiev that he didnt care how many men he lost to hold them witch was also very stupid.

[O'brien the Protector]

the russian winter was over when the counter attack startd. so Im pretty sure that when the 6th army was defeated, the winter was gone.

[elfaor]

Well that&#39;s a huge thread.

My view:

The turning point was the date chosen by Hitler to declare war on the SU. He had no need to rush things and we now know that if he had waited for a few months then the Soviets would have attacked first. If this had happen, I find it very difficult to believe that the USA would have send supplies to a SU who was the aggressor. The war would have either continued in a three alliances mod (Axis, Allies, Commitern) or the USA would not focus only in the Pacific leaving the UK to sign an "honourable peace" with the Reich.

In any event, no USA help = SU eventually loses

[Rapax]

Question is whether germany would have survived a possible russian invasion in &#39;42.

[S.P.Q.R.]

Originally posted by Rapax@Mar 2 2005, 12:56 PM
Question is whether germany would have survived a possible russian invasion in &#39;42.

germany against the Soviets alone yes...I assume this because I&#39;m thinking about the harsh and clever strategic retreatment by the German in Italy at their last grasp to held Italy (Gothic line...Gustav Line....).
Say that, the geography of Germany is different then the Italian peninsula so It would be harder to defend its broad frontline.
But the reserve were close enough to support the front and a clever defensive work nearby the rivers should be at hand for the able Germans. And let&#39;s not forget that the germans were so close to finish experimentig the first rockets...that would really change the tides.

[RusskiSoldat]

I think that the Brittish would be glad to get any support in 1942 (provided they were still around) and would gladly ally with USSR for duration of the war. Of ocurse then another Cold War would definitely ensue with us controlling France Italy and Austria among others.

[Orolinwe]

Stalingrad was unquestionably the turning point of WW2. The Russians won the war.

Despite all of Hollywood&#39;s best attempts to portray it otherwise, D-Day was mostly FINALLY launched to prevent the Russians from liberating all of Europe before the US could take some of the credit.

In the Pacific, Midway was the turning point. Of course... Midway was probably the luckiest won major battle in all of history.

If Nazis had defeated Russia then the Pacific theater would likely have turned out differently, this is why Stalingrad is turning point in the entire war.

You could say that the Reich lost the war as soon as it invaded, or made the decision to invade, Russia, but this would be wrong. This is the 20/20 hindsight of already knowing the outcome and thinking it was a definite outcome. Which is always the most common mistake of looking at history. The invasion of Russia was a very close contest, despite all the screw-ups and overconfidence of the Germans. And Stalingrad was an extremely close thing. The Germans could have very easily come out on top with just a few small things falling their way. The Russians were on their last leg in the defence of that city, and a loss would have shattered the morale of the nation, just as it did for the Germans.

[Lee1026]

One good turning point is Pearl. Past that there is no way in hell that the Axis can win the war. Japan is doomed, and Germany simplely can&#39;t fight a two front war.

Stanlinsgrad is not much of a turning point. A Germany Army is destroyed, yes, but it did not destory the best weapon of the Reich, which is the Blitz. The dusturction of the entire Germany armored forces at Kursk is the real turning point of the war. (militarilly at least)

[OTZ]

blitzkrieg never existed. it is a myth. it is a legend. blitzkrieg was born in the minds of lookers but was killed on the battlefields of poland.

[Rapax]

Originally posted by lee1026@Mar 24 2005, 07:40 AM
Stanlinsgrad is not much of a turning point. A Germany Army is destroyed, yes, but it did not destory the best weapon of the Reich, which is the Blitz. The dusturction of the entire Germany armored forces at Kursk is the real turning point of the war. (militarilly at least)

How exactly is "the blitz" the best weapon and where was it in 1942? And since when is the destruction of a whole army unimportant?

[Dithyrambos]

Originally posted by OTZ@Mar 24 2005, 05:41 AM
blitzkrieg never existed. it is a myth. it is a legend. blitzkrieg was born in the minds of lookers but was killed on the battlefields of poland.

Untrue. You are correct, however, that the concept of "blitzkreig" is a myth; it did exist. People consider it to be "lightning war," which is exactly what it translates into (more accurate, "lightningwar."), but it was really just a massive Panzer and Luftwaffe assault, hellbent on breaking opposition in the first battle.

The turning point, I&#39;ll have to say, is when Russia took the eastern half of Poland. It all went downhill from there.

[JP226]

In the pacific the turning point was easily wake island. Kinda busted the myth that the japs were invincible. In Europe, the turning point of the war was the battle of britain, again it destroyed the myth of invincibilty of the germans and shed light on a large weakness, a crippling weakness of the german military machine.