Turning point of WW2

david_the_positive said:
Doppleganger said:
Agree with Points 1 and 2, although Stalingrad was a strategic defeat for Germany at which the Soviets suffered nearly 3 times the casualties.
Click to expand...

Hi guys. Good to post here again. I see a real potential for research in the interest displayed here on the Soviet-German war.

On Stalingrad statistics, I think its crucial to know your sources. If you rely on what a particular historian writes down and credits to somebody, you are not exactly thinking for yourself.

If you have German or Russian wartime docs, please share them. I certainly would be interested. For my part, I can email you scans of German docs (in Russian translation.) Reading posts on this forum encouraged me to look them up.

-David.
Click to expand...

Hi David. The trouble is can anyone agree on one definitive source of casualty figures? There are a few books and numerous links on the web all with varying estimates. A more reliable one on the web is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad

Looking at what it says and discounting Axis Satellite losses which were mainly Romanian and occurred outside Stalingrad itself you can see that the ratio was nearly 5:1 in favour of the Wehrmacht. I think we can deduce from taking all the reliable sources into account that the Soviets (as with every other major winning offensive they conducted) took heavy casualties to achieve victory. If you look at my posts I almost always will provide links to back-up my opinions in any case.
 
Stalingrad was the decisive battle, for the following reasons: 1. The Germans never really recovered from it. Although they were able to retake the initiative from the Russians at certain places and times after the battle, they never kept it, and the retreat that started from the Caucasus as a result of the battle did not end until the fall of Berlin. 2. For the first time, it showed that the Wehrmacht could be decisively engaged and defeated, something that had not yet occurred at that level. 3. The loss of the 6th Army meant the end of any and all advances into the Caucasus oil fields, which was one of the main objectives of Barbarossa. In fact, after Operation Saturn, Manstein's flank was exposed, so he quickly withdrew all of Army Group B to the north of Rostov ensuring it's survival. That retreat finally finished in Berlin. 4. In spite of the fact that the Germans had suffered a defeat, the OKW still believed that the Russians were incapable of producing enough men and materiel to continue fighting the war. Thus, they continued to underestimate the Russians until it was far too late. Kursk was an attempt to re-take the lost initiative on the Eastern Front, and Moscow was the final push of an exhausted army the could not have gone much farther had they wanted to. Stalingrad was the point at which the Russians changed the course of the war.

So there....

Dean.
 
The constant firebombing, UK all night and US all day, demoralized Germany and made it almost impossible to regroup without being bombed. All the Mosquito bombers, B-17s, B25s, and every other bomber after we gained air superiority over Germany and were bombing at will.

Next, the support we gave Russia on the Eastern front took enough pressure off Stalin so they could become offensive for a change.
 
Missileer said:
The constant firebombing, UK all night and US all day, demoralized Germany and made it almost impossible to regroup without being bombed. All the Mosquito bombers, B-17s, B25s, and every other bomber after we gained air superiority over Germany and were bombing at will.

Next, the support we gave Russia on the Eastern front took enough pressure off Stalin so they could become offensive for a change.
Click to expand...

It's a misconception that the strategic bombing of Germany made any decisive difference to the eventual outcome of WW2. It was only after the eventual defeat of Germany was more or less assured that strategic bombing became effective. The conclusion is that strategic bombing is only effective on a military power who is already defeated.

http://www.historic-battles.com/Articles/can_the_allies_strategic_bombing.htm

I don't think Stalin needed any help from us to go on the offensive, although what we did helped enormously. Stalin launched numerous offensives without any direct help from the Western Allies. What really helped Stalin was Lend-Lease, which was critical to the Soviet Union's ability to recover in 1941/42 and eventually defeat the Wehrmacht.
 
This seems to qualify to some extent the effects bombing had on the ability of Germany to sustain a successful war effort.




Despite the Germans success at countering the Allied bombers, this diversion of German effort was, paradoxically, one of the major successes of the Allied strategic bombing campaign. The German efforts to counter the Allied attacks were huge and required the services of tens of thousands of workers and a large proportion of German industrial output to build and maintain defences such as flak batteries and bomb shelters, and to repair the damage caused by the Allied bombers. By 1944 4.5 million German soldiers and civilians, representing 20% of the German labour force, were employed in combating the bombers. This greatly limited the manpower pool available to work in armaments factories, and therefore limited the scale of the increase in armaments output.[33] The desire to retaliate against Britain also wasted German industrial resources, with the V1 and V2 rocket programs using significant resources for meagre returns.[34] So great was the total diversion of German resources required to counter the bombers, that Albert Speer believed that it in effect “opened a second front long before the invasion of Europe”, and represented a major Allied victory.[35]
 
Doppleganger said:
Missileer said:
The constant firebombing, UK all night and US all day, demoralized Germany and made it almost impossible to regroup without being bombed. All the Mosquito bombers, B-17s, B25s, and every other bomber after we gained air superiority over Germany and were bombing at will.

Next, the support we gave Russia on the Eastern front took enough pressure off Stalin so they could become offensive for a change.
Click to expand...

It's a misconception that the strategic bombing of Germany made any decisive difference to the eventual outcome of WW2. It was only after the eventual defeat of Germany was more or less assured that strategic bombing became effective. The conclusion is that strategic bombing is only effective on a military power who is already defeated.

http://www.historic-battles.com/Articles/can_the_allies_strategic_bombing.htm

I don't think Stalin needed any help from us to go on the offensive, although what we did helped enormously. Stalin launched numerous offensives without any direct help from the Western Allies. What really helped Stalin was Lend-Lease, which was critical to the Soviet Union's ability to recover in 1941/42 and eventually defeat the Wehrmacht.
Click to expand...

I agree with you Dopps.

The fire bombing of Germany probably made the Germans more resolute! As it did the British during the Blitz.

Stalingrad was the turning point but the Battle of Moscow was a significant blow to the Germans. It was their first major military reversal.

When the Mustang was in use (very late in the war) then air attacks had the Germans very much on the ropes.

I think Missileer should read Max Hastings "Bomber Command".
 
I agree with you as well Doppleganger.

Air power didn't have the Germans down for the count till very late in the war.
 
Airpower was very inaccurate during the mid-point of the war.

The Germans certainly used a lot of resources to defend themselves. Missileer has a point here.

It wasn't the turning point but it eventually ground the Germans down.
 
Baby700 said:
Airpower was very inaccurate during the mid-point of the war.
Click to expand...

Oddly enough I have just got through reading a book called "Cassino The Hollow Victory" by John Ellis and he says the same thing, despite a massive level of air superiority in the Italian campaign time and again the allied airforce failed to take a major toll on the German retreat from Sicily across the straits of Messina and around Anzio in particular the allies were particually inactive.
 
You've got multiple fronts so there were multiple turning points.

WEST: D-Day landings
EAST: Defeat at Stalingrad
MIDDLE EAST: El Alemain
PACIFIC: Defeat of the Japanese at Milne Bay (PNG)
 
Missileer said:
The constant firebombing, UK all night and US all day, demoralized Germany and made it almost impossible to regroup without being bombed. All the Mosquito bombers, B-17s, B25s, and every other bomber after we gained air superiority over Germany and were bombing at will.

Next, the support we gave Russia on the Eastern front took enough pressure off Stalin so they could become offensive for a change.
Click to expand...
\

the firepower and accuracy of bombing in WW2 seemed to be inefficient to really defeat an enemy without using land troops at the end.
 
AussieNick said:
PACIFIC: Defeat of the Japanese at Milne Bay (PNG)
Click to expand...

I agree with you on that Nick.

had the Japanese secured Milne Bay, they could have Bi-passed Port Morseby and gone staright ahead for the Australian Mainland, cutting off our forces already in PNG.

Plus had they Won Milne Bay, they could have moved in on Port Moresby directly and cut off Maroubra Force on the Kokoda Trail, and had we lost Milne Bay, the USMC couldn't have mounted the invasion of Guadacanal.

In comparsion to other battles in the Pacific and even WWII. it wasn't a huge battle, but it sure as hell was an important one.
 
Following events turned the face of WWII:

- Attack on Pearl Harbour (USA enters WWII)
- Hitler attacks Russia and the defeat at "Stalingrad" (First blunder then German Invincibility shattered)
- Capture of Monte Casino (Italy crumbles)
- D-Day marine invasion (Normandy - France)
- Invasion of Okinawa (Japanese War-machine rendered in-effective)
 
I think that are a couple of major turning points, one was Battle Of Britain for if Britain had gone under then just where would the Assault on Europe be launched from. Two The Invasion by Germany of Russia as that sealed the fate of the war as much as anything. Last of all number THREE when America came into the war, not only with her forces but with her industrial muscle, which was far enough away from the war zone never to affected by bombing or any other ravages of the war.
 
I don't think the turning point was external. I think the turning point was an implosion of Hitler himself. They coquered france in about 6 weeks and had Britain on their heals. Ok now the turning point of the war happens when Hitler decides to engage all his forces straight on into Russia where they were strong. He, also to make matters worse, split his armies into three seperate armies with know one specific goal in mind...(Three goals Leningrad, Moscow, and the Ukraine he got greedy and wanted it all) By doin this he was already destined to lose and definatly could not win a war of attrition with the Red Army. This is the biggest blunder Hitler could have made and determined the war. Raeder, Manstein, Rommel, and Guderian all knew it was a insane to attack the strong head on. If Hitler would have listened to these four men they would have easily won.

These men proposed an attack on Malta which would stop all traffic from britain to supply alexandria and the Meditteranian. Then supplying Rommel with 6 panzer division than the 2 he originally received (and almost won with) would have thrown the british back and would have forced them to retreat. This would have ended allied control of the Mediteranian and would have in turn been an axis lake. Then they could have taken the middle east and ride right into the Caucasus, cut supply routes to the Russian army and would be stairing at a soft underbelly. Germany would have easily taken over Russian territory and all there supplies. This would have made Germany soo strong that a landing by Allied forces anywhere in Europe almost an impossibility.
 
The Battle Of Britain...........For if Britain had lost this battle then the country would have been invaded and it does not matter just how we hard we fought or many of us died we did not have the equipment to fight of the German Army at this stage of the war. Now if Britain had gone Hitler would have taken Ireland as well along with Iceland and Greenland stitching up his whole Western flank. The knock on effect would have been that Germany would have taken over Gibraltar closing up the Mediterranean and probably the Suez Canal as well, he would got hold of all the oil wells in the Middle East. To many people out side Britain this battle was only a small one, but had we lost then so would have every thing else have changed.
 
kar98k said:
I don't think the turning point was external. I think the turning point was an implosion of Hitler himself. They coquered france in about 6 weeks and had Britain on their heals. Ok now the turning point of the war happens when Hitler decides to engage all his forces straight on into Russia where they were strong. He, also to make matters worse, split his armies into three seperate armies with know one specific goal in mind...(Three goals Leningrad, Moscow, and the Ukraine he got greedy and wanted it all) By doin this he was already destined to lose and definatly could not win a war of attrition with the Red Army. This is the biggest blunder Hitler could have made and determined the war. Raeder, Manstein, Rommel, and Guderian all knew it was a insane to attack the strong head on. If Hitler would have listened to these four men they would have easily won.
Click to expand...

I dont disagree with you however while a multi-prong attack on Russia would have made life a lot easier for the Germans if carried out in 1941 it would not have helped by 1943, the time it would have taken to secure the middle east would have simply given Russia time to strengthen its defences and may possibly have delayed things to the point that Russia attacked Germany first.

I still maintain that had the Italians been anywhere near useful and stayed out of Albania and Greece, Germany could have used the troops and time used in bailing them out to better effect on the Russian front.
 
Yes this is true i agree with what u said however even if they did muster up more defenses their oil and rubber supply would have been cut off and with Japan to the east no aid would have ever entered Russia. Germans could then, if even stopped, have won a war of attrition. Think russia as a pen (just bear with me here lol). If u hold the pen with your right hand then put one edge of the pen agaisnt your left palm and try to grip it, u will be able to grip it half way but not very strongly. Now take the same pen with your right hand and make a T with your fingures and then grip the pen...u will notice that almost all of the pen is covered and your grip is now stronger. This would be like a noose to Russia. Because your palm is closer to your fingures (representing supply line) u would have a tighter grip and choke of all russian access and capture moscow.

As for the battle of britain..it was a hard fought battle but the battle of britain was more of two great nations flexing muscles. Hitler contimplated invading britain but felt the cost was too high because he wanted russia. After awhile he just started bombing cities to make britain just give up but after a while seeing british determination he said the hell with it. Hitler even sent peace treaties to britain and told them just to succumb...if hitler really wanted to take britain in any way he would have invaded the island, north africa (more effectively), and india. Hitler in the back of his mind wanted russia so i do not think the battle of britain was a turning point...maybe for moral for British soldiers but not the entire German campaign
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top