Turning point of WW2

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...


Never happen. Stalin was eyeing eastern europe that is part of the reason he jumped into bed with Hitler in the first place. In return for the non-aggro pact with germany they partition poland and the baltic states. And buys time to coming industrializing his nation and place it on a war footing which like every other nation in world was behind germany.


On a side note it awesome to see this discussion still going on. I have been gone for awhile and can't wait to get back into the discussion. :rambo:
 
I am sure i will take a major bashing for this. but i think the turning point was the whole start of the war. IIRC he told his Admirals they would have until 1945 to prepare the navy. by then he promised them they would have Aircraft Carriers.
 
I'm convinced what lost Hitler the war - and thank God he did - was his invasion of Russia. No Eastern Front would have meant the Nazi's could have driven harder on England, Africa, Italian Penninsula, etc - at least it would have stretched the war out to perhaps 1950 because Germany, without Russian campaign, would have had twice the army in action than it ended up with in 1944/45. So the turning point I believe was that point when Germany was defeated on its Eastern Front losing hundreds of thousands of troops and assets to the Russians. She was weakened severly after that and also that's when German commanders realised the war was lost and started plotting against Hitler - unsuccessfully.
 
Kevin said:
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...

I agree with you there. :sniper:
Click to expand...

Very big 'if' though IMO. Asking 2 megalomaniacs in charge of 2 superpowers armed to the teeth, with totally opposed ideologies, who both covet the same territory, to keep the peace for any length of time is like asking Wayne Rooney to stay on the pitch for 90 minutes, or Kate Moss to stay off coke, in other words nigh on impossible. War in Russia was inevitable.

To answer those who simply state that Hitler attacking the USSR cost him the war. It's too simple and easy to say that. Germany had chances to defeat the Soviet Union had they done some things differently. They had the chance to make peace with the USSR and revert back to pre-war borders as late as mid 1943, effectively moving the Soviet Union out of the picture. This would have made any Allied invasion in 1944 very difficult indeed, if not impossible. Hitler would have been free to keep almost all of Europe under the jackboot and who knows how history may have changed as a result.
 
Okay I think there are several mistakes Hitler made throughout the war. 1 of which was stupid. "Battle of Britain". Hitler should of ignored the bombings of Berlin by RAF and continued there attacks against British Air Fields and smashing communication infustructures. By then, Hitler could of resumed the invasion of Britain. Only then, there would of never been a D-Day invasion which then change the course of history as we speak. All of Britains war material would of belong to Germany. Plus without France or Britain capable of future attacks. There would of been virtually no allied shipments to Russia by the atlantic. Which would of crumbled Russia's war material by constant attacks from the Luftwaffe and no way of resupplying its forces in time. Russia would of then collapsed. Plus more countries joining the Axis powers from Asia or the Middle East. The African Campaign, would of gone successful. Conquering Egypt, Iraq, India and so forth. Thus, Europe would of been in German control for many many years. Don't forget the southern part of France would of therefore be conquered once the Facist party in Spain wins the elections. Only then America along with Mexico and Canada would of faced the Axis powers alone. Which we all know the Mexicans would definitely join Axis powers once they realize they could have economic ties plus realizing war is among them. Which then an invasion from Southern Africa to Southern America into Brazil. Then Hawaii would of been taken by axis powers mainly Japan and the American navy pushed back into its own waters. While the future attacks from the Japanese navy and air force pounding the California coast with its battleships & cruisers. German forces invading from Siberia to Alaska. Therefore to the invasion of Canada. Followed by the United States, by a 4 front war (Northwestern front from Canada, Western front from California, Southern front from Mexico and Northeastern front Nova Scotia/Maine). And finally, what all Axis powers want "World Domination".
 
Yeah, Battle of Britain and Battle of Midway was major turning point of WW2. Also Stalingrad.
 
I believe in the following (though not ranked by importance)
1) Kursk-Although Stalingrad and Moscow were decisive, Kursk determined the entire outcome of the war. With the lost of Kursk, German hopes for a victory, or even a stalemate were lost completely
2) Leyte Gulf-Although Pearl Harbor and Midway were decisive, Leyte Gulf showed which fleet were superior and the Japanese losses were considerable. It was also like Kursk, which ultimately determined the fate of Japan
3) Of course, Stalingrad, Moscow, Midway, and Pearl Harbor were also decisive battles, with D-day and El Alamein being major, yet I believe those two battles sealed the war's fate to a point which the Germans and the Japanese realized they have lost

On the question of whether Germany had not attacked the Soviet Union: It is an impossibility. Even if Hitler had honored the pact (which was extremely unlikely due to ideological differences and hate for each other), Stalin wouldn't had. Stalin even wrote that if Germany hadn't invaded in 1941, the Soviet Union would have had in 1942, when all preparations for war would have been complete. Nazi and Communism differences were very pronounced, as Nazism were right-wing and Communism were left-wing. Not only that, but anti-Communism feelings were high even before the Eastern Europe campaign in Germany, and the signing of the Anti-Comintern pact by Germany showed how much hatred there were between the two countries
 
Had Germany beaten Britain then he would have had a free hand in helping Japan with Jets submarines and Missiles, plus the Japanese Navy would have got radar and many other things. He would have had a free run on the oil fields in the Gulf, I would also think he taken the whole of Ireland to close down the whole of the eastern seaboard.
Remember America did not have a jet engine until they were supplied by Britain along with all the latest radar, lets face it even the all the research on Penicillin was handed to America. Germany would have know doubt also taken Greenland along with Iceland putting America at greater risk.
 
Korean Seaboy said:
I believe in the following (though not ranked by importance)
1) Kursk-Although Stalingrad and Moscow were decisive, Kursk determined the entire outcome of the war. With the lost of Kursk, German hopes for a victory, or even a stalemate were lost completely
2) Leyte Gulf-Although Pearl Harbor and Midway were decisive, Leyte Gulf showed which fleet were superior and the Japanese losses were considerable. It was also like Kursk, which ultimately determined the fate of Japan
3) Of course, Stalingrad, Moscow, Midway, and Pearl Harbor were also decisive battles, with D-day and El Alamein being major, yet I believe those two battles sealed the war's fate to a point which the Germans and the Japanese realized they have lost

On the question of whether Germany had not attacked the Soviet Union: It is an impossibility. Even if Hitler had honored the pact (which was extremely unlikely due to ideological differences and hate for each other), Stalin wouldn't had. Stalin even wrote that if Germany hadn't invaded in 1941, the Soviet Union would have had in 1942, when all preparations for war would have been complete. Nazi and Communism differences were very pronounced, as Nazism were right-wing and Communism were left-wing. Not only that, but anti-Communism feelings were high even before the Eastern Europe campaign in Germany, and the signing of the Anti-Comintern pact by Germany showed how much hatred there were between the two countries
Click to expand...
Kursk:(:the myth of Kursk never will die,because Kursk only is myth .If the Germans had won at Kursk,the result would still be the Red Flag hanging on the Reichstag .Already on 1 september 1941,Germany had lost its chances to defeat the SU .
The same for Midway and Leyte :if Japan had won,they still would lose the war .
 
I aggree with those who stated that Hitler's idea of turning against the Soviet Union and launching operation Barbarossa was the actual turning point of the war.

A multiple-front war can only be fought from a defensive position, and all prior campaigns against Russia had proven that.
The Swedes failed, Napoelon failed, Kaiser Wilhelm II. failed, and Hitler failed to learn from history.
 
All I see is a lot of "ifs" the problem for me is:
1) Britain was not really a second front in 1939-42, it was just pimple on the arse of Europe, there was no way in hell Britain and the Commonwealth could have crossed the channel to retake Europe and there was no chance that the Germans could cross the channel to defeat Britain, it was always destined to be a Mexican stand off.

2) Germany and Russia could not survive together, they are opposing ideologies had Germany not attacked Russia Stalin would have attacked Germany it is as simple as that.

For me the real turning point in WW2 (European Theatre) was the Italian failure in the Balkans that dragged Germany into a 6 week campaign in the region thus delaying Operation Barbarossa by 6 weeks, time that would have made a huge difference on the Eastern front.
 
84RFK said:
I aggree with those who stated that Hitler's idea of turning against the Soviet Union and launching operation Barbarossa was the actual turning point of the war.

A multiple-front war can only be fought from a defensive position, and all prior campaigns against Russia had proven that.
The Swedes failed, Napoelon failed, Kaiser Wilhelm II. failed, and Hitler failed to learn from history.
Click to expand...
I don't think that Kaiser Wilhelm II failed :there was the treaty of Brest-Litowsk.;)
 
I think three of the biggest blunders were by Hitler.
1) Not invading the British Isles.
2) Invading the Soviet Union, thus forcing German forces to fight on two fronts.
3) Hitler declaring war on the USA on Dec. 11, 1941. After Dec. 7th, most Americans felt, the war against Japan was 'our' enemy not the Germans. That Germany was the problem of the Europeans, the USA would fight Japan in the Pacific Ocean. By declaring war on the USA four days after Pearl Harbor, Germany gave the American government a valid reason to make the war against Germany the top priority.

Even before the war Germany and Japan had not prepared for a long drawn out war, neither had the industry for that. They had not developed a long range bombers, similar in capability to the B-17.
 
AVON said:
I think three of the biggest blunders were by Hitler.
1) Not invading the British Isles.
2) Invading the Soviet Union, thus forcing German forces to fight on two fronts.
3) Hitler declaring war on the USA on Dec. 11, 1941. After Dec. 7th, most Americans felt, the war against Japan was 'our' enemy not the Germans. That Germany was the problem of the Europeans, the USA would fight Japan in the Pacific Ocean. By declaring war on the USA four days after Pearl Harbor, Germany gave the American government a valid reason to make the war against Germany the top priority.

Even before the war Germany and Japan had not prepared for a long drawn out war, neither had the industry for that. They had not developed a long range bombers, similar in capability to the B-17.
Click to expand...
1)Invading the British Isles was impossible
2)If you have a viable alternative for an invasion of the SU,let us know
3)Hitler was convinced that war with the US was inevitable .
"Germany was the problem of the Europeans "? Never heard of the "Germany first strategy"?
 
MontyB said:
All I see is a lot of "ifs" the problem for me is:
1) Britain was not really a second front in 1939-42, it was just pimple on the arse of Europe, there was no way in hell Britain and the Commonwealth could have crossed the channel to retake Europe and there was no chance that the Germans could cross the channel to defeat Britain, it was always destined to be a Mexican stand off.

2) Germany and Russia could not survive together, they are opposing ideologies had Germany not attacked Russia Stalin would have attacked Germany it is as simple as that.

For me the real turning point in WW2 (European Theatre) was the Italian failure in the Balkans that dragged Germany into a 6 week campaign in the region thus delaying Operation Barbarossa by 6 weeks, time that would have made a huge difference on the Eastern front.
Click to expand...
1) The Italian failure in Greece had nothing to do with the delay of Barbarossa :the planning for the invasion of Greece (Marita) was finished in december 1940
2)Even without the German invasion of Yugoslavia,Barbarossa would be delayed,because of the late Spring Rasputitsa
2)If the Germans had 6 more weeks,the same for the Russians :the German attack already had failed at the end of august,thus 6 weeks more would not change anything .
 
MontyB said:
All I see is a lot of "ifs" the problem for me is:
1) Britain was not really a second front in 1939-42, it was just pimple on the arse of Europe, there was no way in hell Britain and the Commonwealth could have crossed the channel to retake Europe and there was no chance that the Germans could cross the channel to defeat Britain, it was always destined to be a Mexican stand off.
Click to expand...


Some pimple - seeing as you are claiming that Germany had no chance of defeating it!

And let me remind you that as Britain was the last man standing , in fact Europe was the pimple on the arse of Britain at the time.You can't compare it to the NZ and Australia situation.;-)
 
Del Boy said:
Some pimple - seeing as you are claiming that Germany had no chance of defeating it!

And let me remind you that as Britain was the last man standing , in fact Europe was the pimple on the arse of Britain at the time.You can't compare it to the NZ and Australia situation.;-)
Click to expand...

Sorry but it is a reality, without the American manpower there was no chance to retake Europe, without American resources Britain was finished.

Do not assume I am backing the idea that the USA won WW2 as without Britain America could not have retaken Europe either.

At the same time Germany could not invade Britain therefore the war in the West was over, the RN could do little but keep Germany landlocked and the RAF alone could not have caused enough damage to bring about the defeat of Germany.
 
Let me point out that India raised a army of 8 million men to fight for Britain, and more could have followed. Also many of these men fought very well and won many VC's, India's role in WW2 is often over looked and they made a large contribution to war effort in both World Wars
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top