Shadowalker
Active member
Id go for the Battle of Britain as it was the first defeat for the germans-showed they could be defeated- and it probably boosted morale and if britain had fallen who knows how the war would of ended!
Turning point of WW2
Duty Honor Country
Active member
Stalingrad was the turningpoint for the Germans. After the defeat there, the Germans mounted an attack at Kursk. That attack failed and from then on the Germans were on the defensive. Even if there was no D-Day, Germany would have eventually fell to the Russians. The threat of an Allied assualt kept many troops on the Atlantic Wall.
The Battle of Britian was too early to be considered the turning point of WWII. Britian may have won its survivial, but the Germans were pounding the Russian.
On the Pacific side of things, Midway was the turning point for the Japanese. With the loss of their air craft carriers, the Japanese would never be able to stop the Americans.
The Battle of Britian was too early to be considered the turning point of WWII. Britian may have won its survivial, but the Germans were pounding the Russian.
On the Pacific side of things, Midway was the turning point for the Japanese. With the loss of their air craft carriers, the Japanese would never be able to stop the Americans.
godofthunder9010
Active member
Stalingrad is BY FAR the most decisive turning point of World War II, followed by the Battle for Moscow. Lets face it, Russia bled for the rest of the world in that war and it was them that stopped the German war machine head on. It cost an estimated 27,000,000 Russian lives, all totalled. Sure, Britain stopped the Luftwaffe, but the Luftwaffe was never Germany's best card to play. No, that would be the PANZERS.
Slightly less important was the front that everyone seems to be completely leaving out: China. If Russia was the Black Hole that sucked away Germany's military options, well then China was Japan's ruination. Approximately 20,000,000 dead Chinese ... at that least ought to merit their being mentioned as having been involved in the war. I'm open to suggestions for what battles were the decisive turing point on that front.
Now if we are want to annalyze why the Axis lost, here are some highpoints:
1.) The order to the German Army to stop their attack on the BEF at Dunkirk. There would have been no more BEF if that hadn't happened and that would have been very scary for the ol' UK.
2.) Hitler pulling Army Group Center back and sending them after the Ukraine. If he hadn't, Moscow falls, and Russia's ability to repel Germany ends before the end of 1942.
3.) The US economy was insanely productive compared anybody elses at that time, dragging our nation into it was just plain stupid on the Axis part. Honestly, I don't know how Germany or Japan would have ever managed to take the US down and both had an ocean blocking them from even attempting it.
Slightly less important was the front that everyone seems to be completely leaving out: China. If Russia was the Black Hole that sucked away Germany's military options, well then China was Japan's ruination. Approximately 20,000,000 dead Chinese ... at that least ought to merit their being mentioned as having been involved in the war. I'm open to suggestions for what battles were the decisive turing point on that front.
Now if we are want to annalyze why the Axis lost, here are some highpoints:
1.) The order to the German Army to stop their attack on the BEF at Dunkirk. There would have been no more BEF if that hadn't happened and that would have been very scary for the ol' UK.
2.) Hitler pulling Army Group Center back and sending them after the Ukraine. If he hadn't, Moscow falls, and Russia's ability to repel Germany ends before the end of 1942.
3.) The US economy was insanely productive compared anybody elses at that time, dragging our nation into it was just plain stupid on the Axis part. Honestly, I don't know how Germany or Japan would have ever managed to take the US down and both had an ocean blocking them from even attempting it.
Doppleganger
Active member
godofthunder9010 said:
Yep, I agree, Stalingrad was the biggest turning point of WW2.
I don't know enough about the War in the Far East, but I would suggest that Pearl Harbor was probably more significant than any war in China. How high would the ordinary American's desire have been for war otherwise?
I don't believe Dunkirk had a great influence on the eventual outcome of WW2, for reasons I mentioned earlier in this thread.
I agree that the diverting of Army Group Centre and in particular Panzergruppens 2 & 3 to help in the capture of the Ukraine was significant. However, there is a school of thought to say that Hitler may have been correct to do this, otherwise the German forces pushing towards Moscow may have been in danger of being outflanked on their right side. But Operation Typhoon was (with hindsight) decisively delayed as a result.
The delay of Barbarossa until June 22 in 1941 was another decision that may have been critical.
The US industrial might was another huge factor in WW2. Lend-Lease was vital in allowing the Red Army to recover after their stunning losses in 41/42 and their sheer AFV and plane production totals throughout the war were staggering. From a military and strategic viewpoint it was a massive mistake for the Axis powers to drag the USA in. Had the Japanese not attacked Pearl Harbor and had instead pushed into Siberian Russia, 25 Siberian divisions that literally saved Moscow in 1941 might not have been there to do that.
cPFC/SAJROTC
Active member
Forgive me, and please correct any mistakes in the following
1) Stalingrad was easily the most promenient German turning point
2) Tobruk spelled serious trouble for the Afrika Korps under Rommel though, and was the turning point for Africa's liberation. Tobruk gave the Allied Forces a holding point by which they could transport troops onto the continent near hotspots
3) Midway was the turning point for the Pacific Fleet where they were able to seriously damage Japanese naval vessels.
1) Stalingrad was easily the most promenient German turning point
2) Tobruk spelled serious trouble for the Afrika Korps under Rommel though, and was the turning point for Africa's liberation. Tobruk gave the Allied Forces a holding point by which they could transport troops onto the continent near hotspots
3) Midway was the turning point for the Pacific Fleet where they were able to seriously damage Japanese naval vessels.
godofthunder9010
Active member
My reason for listing Dunkirk as decissive is pretty simple. The idea of invading Britain minus the BEF and other forces that were rescued from Dunkirk would have greatly increased the likelihood of Germany putting together an invasion force of some kind. They might have had to smuggle troops across and land in remote areas of Britain, but because Great Britain was able to salvage that mass of its proffessional army, German options to invade Britain become quite unattractive. Who knows, Hitler might have done the intelligent thing and focussed on finishing off the Brits before trying to tackle the Russians. Dunkirk + Battle of Britain and the RAF's stunning success were crucial in leaving a real threat in the West.
I never said that the Brits were going to fold easily over the lack of the Miracle of Dunkirk. Still, if the Germans had ever made a successful landing on the British Isles with a strong force, who's to say what happens. The French were probably of a similar mindset, but at that point in the war, nobody had adapted to the German Blitzkrieg tactics. A numerically superior French/British force lost in 40 days in France. How long could Great Britain have held out if Germany managed to invade? Of course, the British Fleet coming to the rescue always comes up at this point. Lucky that nobody knew how good air power worked against navies at that stage, or Germany would have lured the Royal Navy into striking distance by launching a false invasion fleet and into the English Channel. What choice does the Royal Navy have under those circumstances? My point is, minus the BEF, Germany has lots of options there.
As far as the Chinese side of the War, I'll have to do some in depth research on it since nobody seems to know anything about it. Consider that Japan had to divert substantial effort in pursuing the Chinese front. In the East, China was the nation that bled for the Allied cause, and stopped the Japanese war machine. Had they not, Russia would have faced a very large threat on their Eastern side. Additionally, consider Japan with a conquerred China and all its human and natural resources ... that's a scary thought now isn't it? Many doubt that Japan could have completely taken all of China, but then again, nobody ever thought they would take as much of China as they did.
Yes, Midway should be listed as a major turning point. Still, Japan was never the greatest threat and so the "biggest turning point for Germany" is the biggest turning point for the whole game.
I never said that the Brits were going to fold easily over the lack of the Miracle of Dunkirk. Still, if the Germans had ever made a successful landing on the British Isles with a strong force, who's to say what happens. The French were probably of a similar mindset, but at that point in the war, nobody had adapted to the German Blitzkrieg tactics. A numerically superior French/British force lost in 40 days in France. How long could Great Britain have held out if Germany managed to invade? Of course, the British Fleet coming to the rescue always comes up at this point. Lucky that nobody knew how good air power worked against navies at that stage, or Germany would have lured the Royal Navy into striking distance by launching a false invasion fleet and into the English Channel. What choice does the Royal Navy have under those circumstances? My point is, minus the BEF, Germany has lots of options there.
As far as the Chinese side of the War, I'll have to do some in depth research on it since nobody seems to know anything about it. Consider that Japan had to divert substantial effort in pursuing the Chinese front. In the East, China was the nation that bled for the Allied cause, and stopped the Japanese war machine. Had they not, Russia would have faced a very large threat on their Eastern side. Additionally, consider Japan with a conquerred China and all its human and natural resources ... that's a scary thought now isn't it? Many doubt that Japan could have completely taken all of China, but then again, nobody ever thought they would take as much of China as they did.
Yes, Midway should be listed as a major turning point. Still, Japan was never the greatest threat and so the "biggest turning point for Germany" is the biggest turning point for the whole game.
GuyontheRight
Active member
Pearl Harbor/Hitler Declares War on USA-it established that the Axis could not work together on a combined front (Russia) and that the allies would.
I disagree about Stalingrad, from what Ive read the German Army had chances to regain the intiiative (Kursk) but did not. Those Panzers used in Kursk should have been sent to Tunis to repell a weaker allied force then be used in an attack that went nowhere fast. I firmly belive that if Germany would have not launched the offensive at Kursk, and instead chose to fight tactical advances against the Russian, then the Kremlin, with it's population a huge casulty from the war already, would have sued for peace.
I disagree about Stalingrad, from what Ive read the German Army had chances to regain the intiiative (Kursk) but did not. Those Panzers used in Kursk should have been sent to Tunis to repell a weaker allied force then be used in an attack that went nowhere fast. I firmly belive that if Germany would have not launched the offensive at Kursk, and instead chose to fight tactical advances against the Russian, then the Kremlin, with it's population a huge casulty from the war already, would have sued for peace.
godofthunder9010
Active member
One thing that is generally agreed on is that there are 3 crucial battles. Moscow, Stalingrad and Kurtsk. The really big deal about Stalingrad was: 1.) complete destruction of an entire army. 2.) The Russians proved to themselves that they could win a decissive battle. Its the second of those that I would site as the "why" for Stalingrad over Kurtsk.
Doppleganger
Active member
godofthunder9010 said:
Actually Kursk wasn't all that decisive a battle. German losses for Kursk were no higher than for any other battle fought in 1943. It's a misconception fuelled by Soviet propaganda that the Wehrmacht was severely mauled during Zitadelle - it wasn't. Truth is, average panzer division operational status was the highest it had been for some months even after Zitadelle had officially ended.
What WAS decisive for Germany was NOT choosing to employ Manstein's 'backhand' alternative plan. This would have cut off the Soviet South West and Don Fronts and perhaps have completely smashed them. This may have given the initiative back to the Wehrmacht and have changed the entire fact of the Ostfront.
GuyontheRight
Active member
It's a misconception fuelled by Soviet propaganda that the Wehrmacht was severely mauled during Zitadelle - it wasn't. Truth is, average panzer division operational status was the highest it had been for some months even after Zitadelle had officially ended.
It was a waste in effort and operational capability. Alot more could have been accomplished for alot less. Keep in mind the Wehrmacht sacrificed tanks that could of been used to save Italy.
It was a waste in effort and operational capability. Alot more could have been accomplished for alot less. Keep in mind the Wehrmacht sacrificed tanks that could of been used to save Italy.
Doppleganger
Active member
GuyontheRight said:
Of course it was. But again realise that they didn't really lose all that many tanks. Most of their losses were not in combat but due to mechanical failures as we know that the Panther and Elephant tanks were rushed into combat way too soon.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Battle of Kursk
Allow me to quote from this link:
Prokhorovka
"On 12 July the Luftwaffe and artillery units bombed the Soviet positions as the SS divisions formed up. Traditionally this battle has been described like this: The German advance started and they were astonished to see masses of Soviet armor advancing towards them. What followed was the largest tank engagement ever, with over 1,500 tanks in close contact. The air forces of both countries flew overhead, but they were unable to see anything through the dust and smoke pouring out from destroyed tanks. On the ground, commanders were unable to keep track of developments and the battle rapidly degenerated into an immense number of confused and bitter small-unit actions, often at close quarters. The fighting raged on all day, and by evening the last shots were being fired as the two sides disengaged. German losses amounted to over 300 tanks with the Soviets losing a similar number.
However, this description of the battle of Prokhorovka has been proven to be the invention of Soviet propaganda. It has been depicted among other things on large mural paintings. It was a Soviet victory only in one sense, the German attack was halted. Most Soviet tanks were destroyed by the Germans at long range, and relatively few were involved in short range exchanges of fire. German losses were actually relatively few and for most of the day they were fighting in good order. The Soviet losses were 322 tanks, of which more than half beyond repair, more than 1000 dead and an additional 2500 missing or wounded. German losses were less than 20% of that. The Germans had however planned to be on the offensive that day, and because of the Red Army attack their advance had been halted."
They *really* should have listened to Manstein and adopted his backhand plan. IMO it would have worked as it utlized the Wehrmacht's greatest strengths, that being of mobility and far greater tactical skill. Manstein was nothing short of a genius and probably the best Field Marshall in modern warfare.
GuyontheRight
Active member
Hey Dopplegagner, this may be a little off topic, but have you read Alan Clarke Barbarossa? This is really the only account of the eastern Front Ive had, and of course it was written in '65, so Ive been worried it's been plaugued by Propiganda (For instance, their is no mention of the Operation Mars).
Doppleganger
Active member
GuyontheRight said:
I haven't but I suspect being written back then it will have some inaccuracies. I don't think there's any one book that gives an absolute objective view of Barbarossa. Operation Mars tends to be 'forgotten' by any official Soviet accounts and by sympathetic authors. It was a massive defeat for the Red Army and IMO tarnishes the legacy of Zhukov. This is quite a good link about here:
http://www.battlefield.ru/library/battles/battle12_04.html
GuyontheRight
Active member
I haven't but I suspect being written back then it will have some inaccuracies. I don't think there's any one book that gives an absolute objective view of Barbarossa. Operation Mars tends to be 'forgotten' by any official Soviet accounts and by sympathetic authors. It was a massive defeat for the Red Army and IMO tarnishes the legacy of Zhukov.
Yea Ive also read Zhukov's Greatest Defeat by Mr. David M. Glantz and it really opened my eyes to the "unknown" hisotry of the Eastern Front.
Yea Ive also read Zhukov's Greatest Defeat by Mr. David M. Glantz and it really opened my eyes to the "unknown" hisotry of the Eastern Front.
godofthunder9010
Active member
Its so sad really. The war was won or lost on the Eastern Front, in fact, that was where the REAL World War II WAS .... but there is so little credibility in any Soviet account that you're left only knowing one thing for certain: The Red Army won in the end.
I never have judged Zukov to be the Superman that he is often made out to be. In the end, virtually every battle seemed to kill more Russians than Germans, all he had to win with was superior numbers. Based on the proportion of his losses compared to opposing German forces, if Zukov was a brilliant leader, then Ulyssus S Grant (while fighting Lee) was an unparalleled genius by comparison. Still, the man and his fellows did what nobody before them seemed capable of doing: Stopping the Germans.
Luckily, the German accounts of the whole affair somehow seem to be a bit more reliable source for statistics, kills etc, at least for those details where an accurate count could be gotten by the Germans. Yeah, Barbarossa is an excellent example of the Soviets modifying their losses. German tallies were a minimum of 15,000 Russian tanks killed and at least 12,000 Russian combat aircraft destroyed. I believe it was approximately 9 million Russian soldiers taken prisoner that year. Considering that because there was Russian Army, tanks and aircraft left over, and that Germany invaded with tiny fractions of those numbers, we quickly learn how frighteningly one-sided Barbarossa really was, and how enormous the Red Army really was. We also can see why the Soviet Union would never dare admit their actual losses.
I never have judged Zukov to be the Superman that he is often made out to be. In the end, virtually every battle seemed to kill more Russians than Germans, all he had to win with was superior numbers. Based on the proportion of his losses compared to opposing German forces, if Zukov was a brilliant leader, then Ulyssus S Grant (while fighting Lee) was an unparalleled genius by comparison. Still, the man and his fellows did what nobody before them seemed capable of doing: Stopping the Germans.
Luckily, the German accounts of the whole affair somehow seem to be a bit more reliable source for statistics, kills etc, at least for those details where an accurate count could be gotten by the Germans. Yeah, Barbarossa is an excellent example of the Soviets modifying their losses. German tallies were a minimum of 15,000 Russian tanks killed and at least 12,000 Russian combat aircraft destroyed. I believe it was approximately 9 million Russian soldiers taken prisoner that year. Considering that because there was Russian Army, tanks and aircraft left over, and that Germany invaded with tiny fractions of those numbers, we quickly learn how frighteningly one-sided Barbarossa really was, and how enormous the Red Army really was. We also can see why the Soviet Union would never dare admit their actual losses.
The turning point of the war is when germany attacked the USSR (operation barbarossa).
I think so because:
If the USSR would have joind Germany than the UK and USA won't stand a chance against the Axis powers.
(Germany=large army with the most advanced technology for that time and a large airforce+ USSR=The most powerful nation with the biggest army that will fight till the last man and good techology and a large airforce+ Italy=a pretty big army with good techology+ Japan=great naval power, good techology and a large army that will fight till the last man, even make suiced attacks and a large airforce vs UK=large army with good techology and great naval power+ USA=large army with good techology and the biggest naval power and a large airforce+ China=very large army with good technology).
these are the main military powers in ww2 (i know that there are more: astralia and countries that where under axises controll like: poland and france)
and even if USSR would reimain nutrall, the allies would still have a very hard time defeting Germany, because thn Germany could focus it's military on the western front.
Thanks god the Allies won!
I think so because:
If the USSR would have joind Germany than the UK and USA won't stand a chance against the Axis powers.
(Germany=large army with the most advanced technology for that time and a large airforce+ USSR=The most powerful nation with the biggest army that will fight till the last man and good techology and a large airforce+ Italy=a pretty big army with good techology+ Japan=great naval power, good techology and a large army that will fight till the last man, even make suiced attacks and a large airforce vs UK=large army with good techology and great naval power+ USA=large army with good techology and the biggest naval power and a large airforce+ China=very large army with good technology).
these are the main military powers in ww2 (i know that there are more: astralia and countries that where under axises controll like: poland and france)
and even if USSR would reimain nutrall, the allies would still have a very hard time defeting Germany, because thn Germany could focus it's military on the western front.
Thanks god the Allies won!
GuyontheRight
Active member
Italy=a pretty big army with good techology
As much as it pains me to say this (I have alot of Italian pride) Iralians cant fight for anything. The Army of Mussolini was horribly motivated and usless. Furhtermore their capacity to manufacture weapons was extremly limited. The only reason italy joined Germany was because Mussolini was scared of being knocked off the world stage.
As much as it pains me to say this (I have alot of Italian pride) Iralians cant fight for anything. The Army of Mussolini was horribly motivated and usless. Furhtermore their capacity to manufacture weapons was extremly limited. The only reason italy joined Germany was because Mussolini was scared of being knocked off the world stage.
GuyontheRight said:
Italy got a lot of weapons from germany, thats why I said they had good techology.
They didn't have a large army but a pretty big army.
and even without Italy USA and UK won't be able to stand a chance agains Germany, Japan and USSR (if USSR joined the axis).
Any way what i ment to say is that the turning point of the war was when the USSR started pushing the German army back to Berlin.
Alright I am back LOL. I finally got electronic rights back so I can post again. I completed basic training in July and I am currently in AIT at Ft Huachua.......
Anyway on the subject of WW2, I believe the US and UK could have brought a Berlin, Moscow, & Tokyo axis to their knees. American Industrial production exceeding that of total of these 3 countries combined. America had more staying power plus 2 oceans protecting the heartland. :lol:
Anyway on the subject of WW2, I believe the US and UK could have brought a Berlin, Moscow, & Tokyo axis to their knees. American Industrial production exceeding that of total of these 3 countries combined. America had more staying power plus 2 oceans protecting the heartland. :lol:
GuyontheRight
Active member
Welcome back panzer 