Turning Points of WW2

[SonOfAlexander]

Right, as a change from posting threads that I think have innocent enough questions but which people seem to like to be offended by, I'm gonna make a serious historical discussion thread.

In WW2, people often place the outcome of the war on 'hinging points' - battles or events which swung the outcome from a Nazi to an Allied victory. The main ones I can think of are, in no particular order:

.El Alamein
.D-Day (though if you know WW2 military planning, you know that's a stupid phrase)
.Midway
.Guadalcanal
.The Coral Sea
.Stalingrad

I personally think of Midway as the biggest, but were these turning points really so dramatic? I think so.
Was the outcome of the war really inevitable, or could these points still have been turned around after?

[Spartacus the Irish]

Operation Barbarossa. I in no way believe that the Western Allied fronts were useless or pointless, but without Russia, there was no way that Germany could have been defeated before 1945 - Russia's armies were willing (perhaps able is a more appropriate term) to take casualties that British and American armies just could not afford to.

Think about the massive casualties that Germany took on the Eastern Front - there is no way American or British armies could afford those losses; let alone afford the losses it would take to inflict those losses upon Germany's armies.

EDIT:

were these turning points really so dramatic? I think so. Was the outcome of the war really inevitable, or could these points still have been turned around after?

Nothing is inevitable in war - its course can be deflected and even reversed by the smallest of events. The Battle of Britain seemed a small, rather hollow victory (especially so considering Germany had no capacity to effectively invade Britain anyway); but it set a timetable on Germany's plans. People assume Germany wanted a short war - this is untrue. Germany wanted short campaigns, because she had little strategic reserves of equipment, men, and economic and industrial power, and thus needed frequent rests between campaigns to refit, repair, and train replacements. The survival of Britain meant she had attacked an enemy she couldn't quickly defeat, and thus the timetable for war had to be pushed forward. Thus Barbarossa was launched well before Germany was ready. It worked against France and the Low Countries because they were rational, democratic armies and states. Russia possessed neither of these qualities, and was thus able to be bigger, and eventually better, than the German's were in most, if not all, departments that mattered - the ability to take casualties, the ability to inflict casualties, the ability to be ruthless, utterly ruthless, in the pursuit of final victory.

[Augment]

Anne Frank

[lawless_sage]

yes i think d-day was a welled planned victory in fact the allies convinced the Germans to think the invasion was somewhere else and it was the largest amphibious assault in history and i read somewhere that had Hitlers chain of command been more organised he could have dealt with d-day i also read that the Germans thought there coding machine enigma was unbreakable but it was the allies with the help of a polish mathematician the allies successfully solved the German code and i think the allies did a good job controlling German intelligence and landing a good assault and Hitler's chain of command was not strong or oraginiszed to stop the allied invasion but from my standpoint the rest of the war was fair game I actually believe the battle of the bulge finally ended the last real German counter attack that battle as well as d-day and the fight for France was what won the war

oh yes and the Russian's did a good job too they offered much needed support by fighting the eastern front

[conon394]

Think about the massive casualties that Germany took on the Eastern Front - there is no way American or British armies could afford those losses; let alone afford the losses it would take to inflict those losses upon Germany's armies.

I would quibble on afford vs willingness vs necessity - The USSR could not really afford that kind of loss either, but they did not have much of a choice. No doubt a US/UK only war again Germany would have been diffrent but I think would have seen Germany defeated.

The Battle of Britain seemed a small, rather hollow victory (especially so considering Germany had no capacity to effectively invade Britain anyway); but it set a timetable on Germany's plans. People assume Germany wanted a short war - this is untrue. Germany wanted short campaigns, because she had little strategic reserves of equipment, men, and economic and industrial power, and thus needed frequent rests between campaigns to refit, repair, and train replacements. The survival of Britain meant she had attacked an enemy she couldn't quickly defeat, and thus the timetable for war had to be pushed forward. Thus Barbarossa was launched well before Germany was ready. It worked against France and the Low Countries because they were rational, democratic armies and states. Russia possessed neither of these qualities, and was thus able to be bigger, and eventually better, than the German's were in most, if not all, departments that mattered - the ability to take casualties, the ability to inflict casualties, the ability to be ruthless, utterly ruthless, in the pursuit of final victory.

Not to quibble here but you minimize the Battle of Britain and France far to much - the cost to German air force was high - very high. With no other enemy, a much stronger German Air Force, and dare I say it critical aid even in 42, I seriously doubt the USSR would have survived.

So I would say the Battle of Britain was the decisive battle of the war. Hitler learned he had no real ability to deter or invade the UK and so was driven to find a war he had tools for but could not focus on as he needed to to win.

[Spartacus the Irish]

I would quibble on afford vs willingness vs necessity - The USSR could not really afford that kind of loss either, but they did not have much of a choice. No doubt a US/UK only war again Germany would have been diffrent but I think would have seen Germany defeated.

Your last point is interesting. Horrifying consequences for Europe, however.

And Russia very much could. It took an army as equally brutal, irrational, dogged and single-minded to defeat Germany's. And that ruled out the democratic armies of the Western Allies. I am no Russophile, I have argued vehemently for the case of D-Day being essential to victory, and fully deserving praise for the defeat of Nazi Germany. But the US Army, and the British, Commonwealth et al. can you imagine them taking several million casualties? There would have been outcry, and most probably mutiny amongst the Allied soldiers. The one thing you come across when reading Allied commander's accounts is the low regard they held for their average infantryman as the war drew to a close - just when the enemy was getting more desperate and more determined.

Russia's armies broke the back of the Wehrmacht. The Western Allies were instrumental in helping dismantle it, as shown during the envelopment battles of Falaise and Roncy, and the attrition caused by the Italian and North African campaigns - but Russia's armies could soak up the casualties that the main mass of the Wehrmacht could throw out, whilst inflicting millions ofcasualties themselves. The Western Allies just could not have managed such a feat, not before 1945 anyhow.

Not to quibble here but you minimize the Battle of Britain and France far to much - the cost to German air force was high - very high. With no other enemy, a much stronger German Air Force, and dare I say it critical aid even in 42, I seriously doubt the USSR would have survived.

I'm saying that the BoB (Battle of Britain) seemed a small, hollow victory at the time. And every campaign cost the Luftwaffe. The entire reason for the 'Phoney War' was because the Luftwaffe suffered heavy losses in Poland. The Luftwaffe lost 258 aircraft to all causes, and 260-odd were damaged; and despite the Luftwaffe having a pretty good recovery rate earlywar, only about 40% of these damaged aircraft returned to front-line service.

The BoB seemed a relatively insignificant event at the time, especially when compared to events that overtook it - Pearl Harbor, Barbarossa, the Holocaust. But I am saying that it was essential to Germany's eventual defeat, because she had made the unmitigated disaster of taking on an enemy that she could not quickly and easily (I use the term somewhat loosely, no victory, even Poland and France, was ever 'easy') defeat. The fact that Germany could now not rely on a short campaign against England, that she would sufffer attrition and combat constantly, forced her hand with regard to her future war plans - i.e. Russia.

So I would say the Battle of Britain was the decisive battle of the war. Hitler learned he had no real ability to deter or invade the UK and so was driven to find a war he had tools for but could not focus on as he needed to to win.

Very true. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough above - I was stating that the BoB made a huge difference; I'm just saying it didn't appear to alter much directly, nor contemporarily.

[Juvenal]

I think that the Battle for Moscow might be a better turning point than Stalingrad.

It was the first time that Russian forces fought on equal terms with the Germans, and beat them.

Hitler's stand-fast order set a precedent that would later condemn large parts of the German military to needless destruction. In particular it hamstrung Manstein's mobile defence doctrine and probably shortened the war. Even though the stand-fast order appeared to work at the time, it left Army Group Centre with an impossibly convoluted front-line and no ability to concentrate.

After Moscow, the Germans no longer had the capability to launch a general offensive like Barbarossa.

[Mangalore]

....
I'm saying that the BoB (Battle of Britain) seemed a small, hollow victory at the time. And every campaign cost the Luftwaffe. The entire reason for the 'Phoney War' was because the Luftwaffe suffered heavy losses in Poland. The Luftwaffe lost 258 aircraft to all causes, and 260-odd were damaged; and despite the Luftwaffe having a pretty good recovery rate earlywar, only about 40% of these damaged aircraft returned to front-line service.
Russia.
....

The phoney war was however mainly a decision by the Allies. The way Blitzkrieg worked and germany remained in a limited war footing at that stage meant that for each military operation the German armed forces had to accumulate resources before the strike. I don't think the losses are that heavy. The air doctrine was that of achieving air supremacy within days of the attack so greater losses to achieve and keep that were part of the whole idea if it meant the annihilation of the enemy air force as an effective fighting force early in the conflict.
For the Germans the phoney war was a godsend because it kept the initiative in their ball park when they were in a diffcult strategic situation. For them an early attack west was not of interest, esspecially since avoiding a war was considered possible.

[Visna]

In the west, Battle of Britain, Dunkerque and Battle of the Atlantic.
In the east a tie between Moscow and Stalingrad.
In the Pacific Pearl Harbour.

[Belisaire_]

Either Stalingrad or Koursk.

[Spartacus the Irish]

The phoney war was however mainly a decision by the Allies. The way Blitzkrieg worked and germany remained in a limited war footing at that stage meant that for each military operation the German armed forces had to accumulate resources before the strike. I don't think the losses are that heavy. The air doctrine was that of achieving air supremacy within days of the attack so greater losses to achieve and keep that were part of the whole idea if it meant the annihilation of the enemy air force as an effective fighting force early in the conflict.

The Allies planned on a strategic defensive - planning to take advantage of their purported air power and the fortifications of the Maginot Line and the natural defences of Belgium and Holland. Thus the Allies were not going to attack Germany - how does that make the lull of the Phoney War an Allied decision? It was up to Germany to attack or not. They chose not, because of the losses of Poland and th wish to conduct operations in Scandanavia first, thus the 'Phoney War' lull happened.

For them [Germany] an early attack west was not of interest, esspecially since avoiding a war was considered possible.

Thus it was Germany's decision for the Phoney War to happen. The Allies were never going to attack Germany; their entire strategy hinged upon the Maginot Line and advancing into Belgium and Holland, but only when Germany moved (the Schlieffen Plan Mark II was expected).

[Mangalore]

The Allies planned on a strategic defensive - planning to take advantage of their purported air power and the fortifications of the Maginot Line and the natural defences of Belgium and Holland. Thus the Allies were not going to attack Germany - how does that make the lull of the Phoney War an Allied decision? It was up to Germany to attack or not. They chose not, because of the losses of Poland and th wish to conduct operations in Scandanavia first, thus the 'Phoney War' lull happened.

Because it was not up to germany to attack so the Allies could save Poland. The German army was perfectly fine with the Allies not attacking the Rhineland while they were occupied in the east => the phoney war was a decision by the Allies because they had the initiative in the west because no godamn german army was in the west at the time or ready to do any attacking. Why the heck would the Wehrmacht be expected to attack in that period when they are outnumbered, outgunned and low on supplies?! Of course they wait for next year when they could restock, resupply and shape up again.

Thus it was Germany's decision for the Phoney War to happen. The Allies were never going to attack Germany; their entire strategy hinged upon the Maginot Line and advancing into Belgium and Holland, but only when Germany moved (the Schlieffen Plan Mark II was expected).

That's wrong. Germany had no ressources left to go on the offensive in the west so the decision to do anything of note there was out of their hands while they were in the east or have not recovered from the Polish campaign, yet. The Allies decided not to engage despite having the initiative and capability to do something else.

To claim it was germany's decision is a distorted perception of war. Of course did Germany decide not to attack in the west then: They would have lost with the few precious divisions they had there to hold the defensive lines!! It was in their very best interest that nothing happened in the west. It was wholy the Allies who decided not to attack when the Germans are weak and wait till the Germans are strong and attack them! If something is wholly in the interest of one side in a war, the other side better think about a change of pace pretty damn fast. The Allies didn't. They decided the status quo was somehow okay.

The Germans _gambled_ that they would not get attacked in the west, the Allies _decided_/planned not to attack.


On top of things: The Allies declared war on Germany. Why should germany take an offensive posture against them then? (they did latter, but as Hitler did not plan for an attack against France but against Poland. Why would he be the one to attack first?)

[Tiberius Tosi]

Dunkirk (moreso a missed opportunity though than a turning point)
Battle of Britain
Battle of Midway
Battle of Moscow
Operation Overlord

(I know I will take heat for not including Stalingrad, but I think that Moscow was more important)

[Wolf68]

I would call Battle of Britain major contribution to the first turn of the war: Hitler's decision to attack Soviet Union

[Gromovnik]

Everything on the western or african front was miniature compared to the battles of the eastern front. So to say that the eastern front was a support is ridiculous.

[Babur]

Everything on the western or african front was miniature compared to the battles of the eastern front. So to say that the eastern front was a support is ridiculous.

not really,the Battle of Britain was crucial since it saved Britain from defeat while the USSR was in a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany at the time,Britain stood alone so they ought to deserve credit too.

[Gromovnik]

not really,the Battle of Britain was crucial since it saved Britain from defeat while the USSR was in a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany at the time,Britain stood alone so they ought to deserve credit too.

Yes it was. But I said that numbers on the eastern theatre make it obvious that it was a main event, not a support operation.

[Babur]

Yes it was. But I said that numbers on the eastern theatre make it obvious that it was a main event, not a support operation.

except the Eastern Front hadn't even been opened when the Battle of Britain happend

[Azog 150]

West:

El Alamein
Breaking the Enigma (Turning point in the Battle of the Atlantic)
Battle of Britain
Operation Overlord (Turning point in that it assured Western Europe would not fall to the Russians)


East:

Operation Barbarossa
Moscow
Stalingrad
Kursk (Absolutely no chance for the Germans passed this point- they were doomed although that probably would have been the case anyway)


Pacific:

Pearl Harbour
Midway
Battle of Imphal (For Burma at least)

[DAVIDE]

about western Europe, there's even Dunkerque. Mussolini entered the war just after that episode, instead of waiting the 1943 as he planned. No Italy in war unprepared, no African front, no need of Hitler to move German divisions towards Greece and Africa to help Italians etc. etc.. Dunkerque is even related to the British spirit of resistance and morale of country