Turning point of WW2

Hitler grossly underestimated the Soviet Union's ability and will to resist and Barbarossa reflected that. IMO Barbarossa should have been planned as a 2 year campaign. 1941 would see the 3-pronged approach but Army Groups' North and Centre would halt outside of Leningrad and Smolensk respectively and dig-in until Spring '42. Army Group South, reinforced to be the strongest, would take the original objectives of the '42 campaign (Case Blau) and then dig in itself for winter. Come Spring '42, Army Group Centre would be reinforced and would drive for Moscow, being a LOT stronger and rested than it was historically, as combat replacements and re-supplies would be in place. Army Group North would be stronger too and would capture Leningrad. Army Group South would undertake no offensive operations and would merely hold its ground.

I believe this strategy might have resulted in a decisive German victory.
 
kar98k....If Hitler did not want to invade Britain then just why did he assemble an invasion fleet all along the coast of Europe, and why did the German Generals make plans for the invasion to be implemented as soon as they had gained control of the Air. Why did they try and destroy the RAF so that they could invade, it was only after Hitler had bombed London by mistake and Churchill sent his bombers to Berlin [what few we had] that Hitler changed tactics and went for London rather than the RAF that changed this Battle
 
Hitler contimplated invasion be he felt it too risky...i have a question for u... do u think if russia started bombing Berlin in 41-42 Hitler would have said, "Oh well u know what?.... lets just stop invasion of russia and pack up and go home and invade someone else?" I highly doubt it.

All his generals came up with plans just to be ready...the Luftwaffe told the army that they could batter britain to submission and that an invasion is to costly.


Yes good point Dopple but the problem with that is you don't have one clear objective...u say u want Leningrad and then u say u want moscow...both would be hard roads...now i understand taking a defensive position however the Germans were not prepared for winter and if they were the supply would be too long, plus north was under strength a lot. I think a single massive force to push on Moscow would have been tremendously easier...Leningrad when captured gave Germany nothin...so y take it? to lose lives? I think if he just pushed on Moscow with Army group north, center, and south and surrounded Moscow, wars over. Even if u just brought north down to reinforce and have south in the Caucusus center still could have taken moscow.


On to the march of Moscow!!!!
 
kar98k.....Funny you should mention about Russia bombing Berlin, did you know that their bomber carried out a few raids in 42/43 just to prove that they could do it. May be if you where a bit older you might remember these little things that are not in the history books
 
...yea ok so russia can reach berlin but that was after germany was already doomed and i am sure berlin can handle a few raids..its just an oponion man dont get personal about it its not like i said, no u were wrong..i stated my oponion and then backed it up with valitity...so what i am 20 big deal doesnt mean i cant object to something i dont believe in...yea so what i didnt live it or whatever but u know what a lot of other 20 year olds are doin right about now not talking about ww2 thats for sure and it only gets worse as u go down the line...yea i read history books and look through diagrams of battle maps, it is also my course of study so i am also constantly lectured on it...so please dont make it personal when i object to somethin its not your right.....

oh yea by the way i found a later post about the battle britain i think u should read it....

http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6476
 
LeEnfield said:
kar98k....If Hitler did not want to invade Britain then just why did he assemble an invasion fleet all along the coast of Europe, and why did the German Generals make plans for the invasion to be implemented as soon as they had gained control of the Air. Why did they try and destroy the RAF so that they could invade, it was only after Hitler had bombed London by mistake and Churchill sent his bombers to Berlin [what few we had] that Hitler changed tactics and went for London rather than the RAF that changed this Battle
Click to expand...

I dont think it is a matter of not wanting to invade Britain I just think he realised that he didnt have the capacity to maintain a bridgehead on the mainland while both the RAF and the Navy remained a potent fighting force.
My personal belief is that the invasion "fleet" which was really little more than a bunch of barges was more to keep the British military at home so they could operate though out the rest of the "empire" much easier.
 
Doppleganger said:
Hitler grossly underestimated the Soviet Union's ability and will to resist and Barbarossa reflected that. IMO Barbarossa should have been planned as a 2 year campaign. 1941 would see the 3-pronged approach but Army Groups' North and Centre would halt outside of Leningrad and Smolensk respectively and dig-in until Spring '42. Army Group South, reinforced to be the strongest, would take the original objectives of the '42 campaign (Case Blau) and then dig in itself for winter. Come Spring '42, Army Group Centre would be reinforced and would drive for Moscow, being a LOT stronger and rested than it was historically, as combat replacements and re-supplies would be in place. Army Group North would be stronger too and would capture Leningrad. Army Group South would undertake no offensive operations and would merely hold its ground.

I believe this strategy might have resulted in a decisive German victory.
Click to expand...

But when the Germany would rest SU would bring up all reserves to the front.
 
kar98k.....The Russian started to carry out the odd raid on Berlin long before they had the upper hand, and by the time they had got the upper hand they lost interest due to raids round the clock by the allies, they probably felt and correctly so that they could use these bombers better else where. Also have you ever looked at the German invasion plans for Britain, that had been complied very throughly and every thing had been planned right down to Regional Control Centres, and also a list of all the peoples that would be arrested on the spot plus a list that would face execution. So don't try telling me that there were no real plans for the invasion and the ones that had been made were only half hearted. They had planned this invasion down to the last item. It was only the efforts of the RAF that held them back long enough for the weather to make a landing impossible, and give us a chance to organise our selfs a bit better.
 
a number of factors i believe turned the war

1 americans entering the war 1942 helping the british kick the germans out of afirca then land in italy.
2 russias victory at stalingrad
3 russias victory at kursk
4 allied landings on normandy
5 battle of britain victory
6 constant bombings of germany by allies
7 battle of bulge victory
8of course battle of belin victory
9 last but not least hitlers idiocy
 
i think if the germans could keep their alliance with russian troops.. the war would of ended verry differant :rambo:
 
Ray89 said:
i think if the germans could keep their alliance with russian troops.. the war would of ended verry differant :rambo:
Click to expand...
Small problem with that is the ideological differences between Nazism and Communism, but more than that, Hitler rode to power by systematically wiping out the Communist Party in Germany. He regularly used different tactics to demonize them and blame them for things that his own party was actually responsible for. The German people under Hitler were about as likely to count Communists as their real allies as they were to put the Jews in charge of the military. In both cases, its a nice idea but it was ideologically impossble.

If they had gone about the invasion of the Soviet Union with a general attitude that they were "liberating them from the evils of Communism" or whatever, that would have been more likely to work out well.
 
I've changed my mind from the Battle of Midway to the Battle of Britain as the turning point of the war.

The Japanese struck at Midway in order to draw out the rest of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and destroy it. This would eliminate any naval threat against the Japanese, giving them supreme control over the waters. They hoped destroying the rest of the fleet would persuade the U.S. to come to the negotiations table.

Now even if the Japanese had won the battle, I don't think they would, or could for that matter, go any farther than Midway atoll. And I don't think the U.S. would have given in to negotiations. Though the Japanese would be able to lay seige to the Hawaii islands, I'm not sure they had the capabilites, or the desire, to invade them. Now even if they did, where to from there? Invade the U.S. mainland? Not a chance. I believe the U.S. would have continued to fight, slowly rebuilding the navy.

It would have, however, brought more attention to the Pacific Front, rather than the European Front. Perhaps it would have delayed operations in the North African and, eventually, the European Front.

Now the Battle of Britain was crucial. If the Battle of Britain turned for the Germans, than there would have been one less ally and one less jumping off point into Europe. After eliminating the threat to the West, I'm sure more forces could be switched over to the Eastern Front. The U.S. would be left without the Normandy invasion and would probably be stuck with a southern french invasion or more stressed Italian Campaign.

Who knows...way too much speculation on my part. Correct me on any of my points, I'm still a new student to military history.
 
Arclight said:
.Now the Battle of Britain was crucial. If the Battle of Britain turned for the Germans, than there would have been one less ally and one less jumping off point into Europe. After eliminating the threat to the West, I'm sure more forces could be switched over to the Eastern Front. The U.S. would be left without the Normandy invasion and would probably be stuck with a southern french invasion or more stressed Italian Campaign.

Who knows...way too much speculation on my part. Correct me on any of my points, I'm still a new student to military history.
Click to expand...

It's my belief that the outcome of the Battle of Britain changed little, as even had the Germans won it was very unlikely that any invasion of Britain would have taken place. Probably the biggest impact was that the losses that the Luftwaffe suffered were missed the following year when Germany invaded Russia. More significant IMO was Hitler's decision to halt Guderian's panzers from finishing off the BEF in Dunkirk in June 1940. The loss of those 330,000 men and their heavy equipment would have severely affected British morale and public opinion and may have forced Churchill out to be replaced by Lord Halifax, at the time British Foreign Secretary. Lord Halifax was more liberal than Churchill and it has been recorded that he might have been in favour of making a separate peace with Hitler.

However, I still regard the Battle of Kursk as the true turning point of WW2.
 
Although the Battle Britain was not one of major battles in WW2, it did hold off the Germans until the weather changed and made an invasion across the Channel unwise during the winter months. The plans for the invasion were very precise and had taken in to account almost every thing. The Barges had been collected and converted and brought to embarkation sites the troops had been brought in, and a full scale air assault took place by the Germans to try and gain mastery of the skies prior to the invasion. IF Hitler had not changed his mind and decided to attack London instead of going for the RAF aerodromes, then the out come could have been very different. Hitler then thought he had the time to take on Russia then he could turn his attention back to us. It should be remembered at this time we did not have any heavy four engine bombers at all, even the Wellington bomber was only just begin to come into service. Had Hitler made the dash across the Channel while we were at our weakest then he just could have succeeded and it this that makes the Battle Of Britain so important.
 
Doppleganger said:
Arclight said:
.Now the Battle of Britain was crucial. If the Battle of Britain turned for the Germans, than there would have been one less ally and one less jumping off point into Europe. After eliminating the threat to the West, I'm sure more forces could be switched over to the Eastern Front. The U.S. would be left without the Normandy invasion and would probably be stuck with a southern french invasion or more stressed Italian Campaign.

Who knows...way too much speculation on my part. Correct me on any of my points, I'm still a new student to military history.
Click to expand...

It's my belief that the outcome of the Battle of Britain changed little, as even had the Germans won it was very unlikely that any invasion of Britain would have taken place. Probably the biggest impact was that the losses that the Luftwaffe suffered were missed the following year when Germany invaded Russia. More significant IMO was Hitler's decision to halt Guderian's panzers from finishing off the BEF in Dunkirk in June 1940. The loss of those 330,000 men and their heavy equipment would have severely affected British morale and public opinion and may have forced Churchill out to be replaced by Lord Halifax, at the time British Foreign Secretary. Lord Halifax was more liberal than Churchill and it has been recorded that he might have been in favour of making a separate peace with Hitler.

However, I still regard the Battle of Kursk as the true turning point of WW2.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that if Germany had won the Battle of Britain, they would have close to total control over the skies? If so, then they could bomb as they please, allowing the change in leadership you suggest would occur if Dunkirk turned out differently. No more threat in the West, and thus, more troops in the East.
 
Arclight said:
Doppleganger said:
Arclight said:
.Now the Battle of Britain was crucial. If the Battle of Britain turned for the Germans, than there would have been one less ally and one less jumping off point into Europe. After eliminating the threat to the West, I'm sure more forces could be switched over to the Eastern Front. The U.S. would be left without the Normandy invasion and would probably be stuck with a southern french invasion or more stressed Italian Campaign.

Who knows...way too much speculation on my part. Correct me on any of my points, I'm still a new student to military history.
Click to expand...

It's my belief that the outcome of the Battle of Britain changed little, as even had the Germans won it was very unlikely that any invasion of Britain would have taken place. Probably the biggest impact was that the losses that the Luftwaffe suffered were missed the following year when Germany invaded Russia. More significant IMO was Hitler's decision to halt Guderian's panzers from finishing off the BEF in Dunkirk in June 1940. The loss of those 330,000 men and their heavy equipment would have severely affected British morale and public opinion and may have forced Churchill out to be replaced by Lord Halifax, at the time British Foreign Secretary. Lord Halifax was more liberal than Churchill and it has been recorded that he might have been in favour of making a separate peace with Hitler.

However, I still regard the Battle of Kursk as the true turning point of WW2.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that if Germany had won the Battle of Britain, they would have close to total control over the skies? If so, then they could bomb as they please, allowing the change in leadership you suggest would occur if Dunkirk turned out differently. No more threat in the West, and thus, more troops in the East.
Click to expand...

It's possible that had the Battle of Britain been lost, Lord Halifax would have replaced Churchill. However, no more troops would have been available for Barbarossa - the Germans were scraping the bottom of the barrel as it was. More significant would have been more fighter and CAS available for the Wehrmacht, especially in November and December 1941.
 
I think that Stalingrad battle was the inflexion point in WWII. If germans would have conquered it, the russians would have be dead. The germans could have reached the oil reserves in northern russian and the coal mines. I also think that loosing a city with the name of their leader would have been a moral strike to russian troops.
 
I guess it all depends on ones definition of "Turning Point"

For me.. The Pacific is Midway, the loss of those four carriers is hard to look past. Devistating defeat for Japan... one that she would never really fully recover from imo....

Europe... a good argument can be made for Kursk or Stalingrad. I lean to the more traditional Stalingrad though, or Case Blue in general. The effects of this loss contributed more to the turning of the tide in the east then any other thing. imo...
 
In the war in the Pacific then I agree the Battle Of midway was a turning point. After this Battle the Japanese were on the defensive, rather than the offensive.
In Russia, Stalingrad was the turning point for Germans in Russia.
In North Africa the it was El-Alamein.
In Europe, the Battle of Britain stopped Hitler from Invading Britain and kept open the life line to America. This was followed by D Day which helped to bring an end to Hitler in Europe, there was also the Battle of the Atlantic and if we had lost that we could have lost the war. There are so many battles that took place that all helped to shape the final victory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top