Turning point of WW2

Hm

"I think you're just mucking around"?

You always know when someone has nothing valid to say when they resort to insults. Note that I will not cast doubts on your integrity or intelligence.

If you had read my post, you will identify that I connected that B of B to Operation Barbarossa and, if anything, I vastly UNDERestimated the importance of the B of B.

The B of B was the first significant defeat for Hitler and highlighted to the world that Nazi Germany was not invincible. It criticially weakened the Luftwaffe at time when Hitler was planning to invade Russia. It left Hitler exposed to a second front with Britain getting stronger every month. It allowed Britain to start supplying Stalin with supplies.

Your comment about the dog analogy is a little disingenuous. I am not denying the scale of the clash between Russia and Germany but had Britain succumbed in 1940, Hitlers forces would have been stronger and better equipped in 1941. Some German forces reached the outskirts of Moscow (3 men and a motorbike actually reached the inner city if I recall). It is entirely possible that German forces may have taken Moscow if Britain had been defeated.

"*real* battles taking place thousands of miles to the east" - a little insulting to the soldiers who had been fighting Nazism since 1939 when the Soviet Union was in bed with Hitler. And not particularly accurate either.

I didnt deny that the invasion of Russia was paramount in Hitlers eyes. What is true is that the US and Soviet Union won the war but Britain ensured that the war wasnt lost. The victory in the Battle of Britain was the most important victory in World War 2 and possibly the most important battle in the history of mankind.

Size has nothing to do with it (cant resist a jibe - ask your partner). Size is irrelevant, the important issue is strategic effect and the effects of the B of B were monumental for all

So our future was in our own hands. And my first comment was valid. Need I say more? I dont think so
 
Re: Hm

spymaster said:
"I think you're just mucking around"?

You always know when someone has nothing valid to say when they resort to insults. Note that I will not cast doubts on your integrity or intelligence.

If you had read my post, you will identify that I connected that B of B to Operation Barbarossa and, if anything, I vastly UNDERestimated the importance of the B of B.

The B of B was the first significant defeat for Hitler and highlighted to the world that Nazi Germany was not invincible. It criticially weakened the Luftwaffe at time when Hitler was planning to invade Russia. It left Hitler exposed to a second front with Britain getting stronger every month. It allowed Britain to start supplying Stalin with supplies.

Your comment about the dog analogy is a little disingenuous. I am not denying the scale of the clash between Russia and Germany but had Britain succumbed in 1940, Hitlers forces would have been stronger and better equipped in 1941. Some German forces reached the outskirts of Moscow (3 men and a motorbike actually reached the inner city if I recall). It is entirely possible that German forces may have taken Moscow if Britain had been defeated.

"*real* battles taking place thousands of miles to the east" - a little insulting to the soldiers who had been fighting Nazism since 1939 when the Soviet Union was in bed with Hitler. And not particularly accurate either.

I didnt deny that the invasion of Russia was paramount in Hitlers eyes. What is true is that the US and Soviet Union won the war but Britain ensured that the war wasnt lost. The victory in the Battle of Britain was the most important victory in World War 2 and possibly the most important battle in the history of mankind.

Size has nothing to do with it (cant resist a jibe - ask your partner). Size is irrelevant, the important issue is strategic effect and the effects of the B of B were monumental for all

So our future was in our own hands. And my first comment was valid. Need I say more? I dont think so
Click to expand...

Woah there. 'Mucking around' is an insult? Not in my eyes and I'm certain I didn't mean to insult you. I was asking a question because when you call the Battle of Britain "possibly the most important battle in the history of mankind" I'm afraid it does make me wonder if you're mucking around. What you're saying then that the Battle of Britain is more important than the Battle of Thermopylae, the Battle of Adrianople, the Battle of Chalons, The Battle of Liegnitz, Pearl Harbor, Stalingrad etc? Sorry but that's a ridiculous thing to say.

As for nothing valid to say that isn't true either. I've posted numerous times in other threads regarding the subject of WW2. Look back further in this thread and you'll see some of my comments. Anyway I'll reply to your counterpoints if I may.

The Battle of Britain was indeed Hitler's first defeat in the sense that the Luftwaffe failed to meet its objectives. I'm not aware that it 'critically weakened' the Luftwaffe and perhaps you would like to post some links supporting your argument. Moreover, it may have left Hitler with a second front when Barbarossa began but with the BEF stranded in the UK and missing all their heavy weapons please explain to me what they were able to do to influence the outcome of Barbarossa.

You state that the Wehrmacht would have been stronger and better equipped had the UK fallen in 1940. What evidence can you provide to support this opinion? The reason why Germany failed to take Moscow in 1941 had everything to do with failings of Hitler and nothing to do with the UK standing alone.

When I stated *real* battles I meant in terms of scale, importance and brutality. No offence was meant and I apologize if any were caused. However entirely accurate IMO. I don't know how much knowledge you have of the Eastern Front but it was fought on a scale that dwarves any other theatre of WW2. 80% of the combat casualties of the Wehrmacht were suffered on the Eastern Front. The best German armies were engaged and eventually broken up and destroyed on that Front.

You're saying now that you don't deny that Russia was paramount in Hitler's eyes but you didn't say this before. You said that Hitler's failure to defeat the RAF caused him to go and attack Stalin which is incorrect.

Size has everything to do with this subject (please keep any unfunny analogies to yourself :P). And yes strategic importance is very important but the Battle of Britain's effect was limited. All it did was stop a possible but improbable invasion of the UK. It changed nothing and in no way affected the eventual outcome of WW2 which was decided on the Eastern Front.

Ok so you say that our future was in our own hands. Ok I give you this scenario which was entirely possible given just a few changes to Hitler's strategy:

1. Hitler immediately puts German industry on a war footing in 1939
2. Barbarossa starts in May 1941 and not June
3. Hitler does not divert forces heading for Moscow to capture the Ukraine

IMO if Hitler changes just those 3 things Germany capture Moscow in 1941. You can read some military books on the subject and you will see that my opinion is shared by many eminent military experts and historians. You will note that I did not put down 'Luftwaffe defeats the RAF in 1940' because it *did not* influence any German failure to capture Moscow.

If Hitler knocks out the Soviet Union and has the entire bulk of his army ready to combat any threat what do you think the UK is going to be able to do about that? They certainly can't invade France on their own and German industry is now free to concentrate on building up the Luftwaffe bombing arm and also the Kriegsmarine. Do you think the US would still turn the UK into a giant aircraft carrier if they know that the entire German war machine is building up and is fresh and waiting for them? I mean D-Day was tough enough when they only had 25% of the Wehrmacht awaiting them, with many of these divisions being static defence, being refitted or training divisions.

You will find that the Luftwaffe will now carry out *a great deal more* bombing raids on the UK and that the activities of the Wolfpack will be stepped up. Germany may even step up capital ship production, finishing off their aircraft carrier, the Graf Zeppelin. All of this means that it will be harder and harder for the UK to stand alone and IMO they will eventually have to come to terms with Germany. Not a very thrilling thought I know but I can't see any other option for us. The Soviet Union is defeated, the US will not commit the forces to the UK like they did historically and indeed US public opinion may decide that it's not 'their war' and instead concentrate on the defeat of Japan.

So I'm afraid that our future was not in our hands. Like it or not but we were relatively minor players in that struggle.
 
Hm

So many points, so many questions to answer.

Sadly, I can't post links - I tend not to research from the internet - far too much rubbish to sift through.

I am at Staff College at the moment in the middle of an essay on the application of strategic effect through air power so I am in an ideal position so I should be able to quote a few chaps to illustrate my points

But you will have to wait until the week because I absolutely refuse to go to the library during the weekend but the first thing I will say is:

It critically weakened the Luftwaffe because those aircraft shot down may have been just enough to force the Wehrmacht and the SS into Moscow - that was the centre of gravity for Russia at that precise moment in time.

As for the battles you mentioned (Battle of Thermopylae, the Battle of Adrianople, the Battle of Chalons, The Battle of Liegnitz, Pearl Harbor, Stalingrad )
PAH! insignificant side shows (perhaps not Stalingrad)

"You said that Hitler's failure to defeat the RAF caused him to go and attack Stalin which is incorrect" I dont recall saying this anywhere. If I did I was wrong and I apologise but I dont remember typing it.

My knowledge of the Eastern Front is clearly not as extensive as yours but I try to be cover global issues rather than specific theatres but please bear with me and I will address each point you raise. We can chat over it line by line and then agree I am right
 
I wonder how much the allied help to the Soviets played in the German failure of Barbarossa and the Soviets counterattack with Siberian reserves. Although I don't no for sure, I doubt that there was any thought by either the US or the Uk to give the Soviets supplies before June 22 of 41. The counterattack by the Sovets began a few days before the USA even got in the war. It just doesnt seem likely to me that anyone but the Soveits should be given credit for Russia's early success. I am not trying to say that the westeran allies' help was not of more importance later.
 
Spymaster, you obviously need to do more research about the Ostfront. At the beginning of Barbarossa, there were three groups. Army Group North - Mission Leningrad. Army Group Center - Mission Moscow. Army Group South - Mission Ukraine/Kiev. All initially had amazing success, but North and South started to bog down somewhat. Army Group North was making outstanding progress, but Moscow was still a long ways off.

And it was then, in September, that the fate of the war probably was decided by an idiot corporal with a bad moustache. "Army Groups North and Center are to pull back and help take the Ukraine." All of Germany's best generals argued against it, probably none more strongly than Guderian (who had built and trained the Panzergruppen to begin with). What the generals knew about Moscow was key. All roads lead to Moscow. All train tracks lead to Moscow. The very heart of the Soviet Unions logistics for resupply was summed up in a single word: Moscow. It was the heart that would pump the vital blood of supplies and reinforcements speedily to the Northern Front, Central Front, and Southern Front. Moscow kept Leningrad from certain collapse. Moscow deployed the forces critical in the victory at Stalingrad. And the most potent Industrial area in Russia = Moscow.

So it was that in late August/early September, Army Group Center (which was over halfway to Moscow) was completely pulled back and sent to the Ukraine. You saw some very impressive one-sided German victories, most notable being Kiev. Finally, in LATE NOVEMBER Army Group Center was allowed to continue its push for Moscow. Most of the ground that they had previously taken had to be retaken again. In Late February, the German's war machine ground to an icy halt only 10 miles from Moscow, some of the fighting coming to within 1 mile of Moscow.

So lets rewrite history just a little. Lets say that Army Group Center is allowed to contine to Moscow unhindered by Hitler. They would regain just over 3 non-winter months with which to take their objective. Do you think for one instant that they would not have EASILY over-run Moscow? They almost managed it in the dead of winter with the accompanying mud and ice.

If Moscow had fallen, Leningrad would have stood virtually no chance of holding out, brave as they were. The Ukraine would have been lost more slowly at first, but without Moscow pumping reinforcements and supplies, it wouldn't have held out for long. Operation Blau would have been a breakout success because Moscow isn't there to send troops and supplies to stop Paulus at Stalingrad. Germany would have captured the Russian oilfields. Russian resistence would have been potent, but without their Heart at Moscow, they'd never have been able to repel the Germans.
==================
Just thought I'd add something. Doppleganger and I may not agree on all points, but I know when I see that he's responded to a topic that I'd better have my research in order. He's got better knowledge about World War II than anyone else who posts here. Most of his understanding is from books, not from online sources. If you want to truly understand World War II then you need to read Actung Panzer - by Heinz Guderian; Panzer Leader - by Heinz Guderian and any Eric von Manstein you can get your hands on.

Consider my own perspective. I'm a proud American who's forced to admit that the mighty USA did not ever fight on the front that truly decided the outcome of World War II. We sent as many supplies as could be managed to the Russians, waged an airwar that probably cost more in planes shot down than damage done to German industry, and sat back helplessly for most of the war. Africa was a drop in the bucket. Completely overtaking Italy would not have provided a viable second Front because all roads out of Italy are through mountain passes and the Alps. The United States contribution to World War II (though no fault of our own) was nothing compared to the Soviet Union's sacrifices in blood, steel and human lives. Even after D-Day, Germany kept 75% of its forces and virtually all of its elite on the Ostfront. How do you think it makes me feel?
 
Re: Hm

Doppleganger said:
1. Hitler immediately puts German industry on a war footing in 1939
2. Barbarossa starts in May 1941 and not June
3. Hitler does not divert forces heading for Moscow to capture the Ukraine
Click to expand...

3 excellent points Doppleganger. Point 2 and 3 are what decided the outcome of Operation Barbarossa and the Ostfront IMO. The diverting of Army Group centers Armor constantly during the advance on Moscow depleted their attacking strength.

Also I would like to add the fact even when the advance stopped that Hitlers refusal to withdraw to a more defensible position was very harmful to future operations on the eastern front.
 
Well, Hitler's "stand or die" policy has been covered, but this has gotten to be a very long thread to have to read through. Bear in mind that arguing against "stand or die" was what got Guderian fired. Best military leader Germany had (probably the best of the 20th century) got sacked because Hitler was just sure he knew what he was doing, but didn't have a clue.
 
Hm

Hm interesting? Do I need to do more research on the Eastern Front? No I dont think I need to. The minutae of the Eastern Front is all well and good, the last book I read on the subject was by Kershaw, cant recall the title but my interest is in the strategic issues of WW2, not worrying about whether Army Group Centre filled in the war diary for 22 Jan 1941.
The issue I am raising is that simply Nazi Germany was the greatest threat to mankind in living memory and maybe of all time.
Had the Battle of Britain been lost, the Nazis would have dominated Europe and potentially the world
 
And the point that I'm making is that if Hitler had let his Generals alone and win the war for him, whether the Battle of Britain was won or lost is almost completely irrelevant: Russia almost definitely crumbles. Sure, throwing in some extra planes would be nice, but the Luftwaffe was not what made the German war machine so successful. The Panzer was. The Luftwaffe, though a good air force, is drastically overhyped. Without ground forces engaging enemy ground forces in battle, the Luftwaffe would have had very few targets. Sure Germany had to hold back some troops to guard the western coast of Europe, but the point is that they could have pulled it off anyway. If they had done it, Britain would have been doomed along with the rest of the world. The Battle of Britain was not very significant at all for Operation Barbarossa's failure to take Moscow. Hitler's meddling was.

The problem with the assumption that Operation Sea Lion was scrapped only because of losing the Battle of Britain is simple. The British Navy would have made an invasion a complete nightmare to plan, and it probably would have been scrapped anyway.
 
godofthunder9010 said:
And the point that I'm making is that if Hitler had let his Generals alone and win the war for him, whether the Battle of Britain was won or lost is almost completely irrelevant: Russia almost definitely crumbles. Sure, throwing in some extra planes would be nice, but the Luftwaffe was not what made the German war machine so successful. The Panzer was. The Luftwaffe, though a good air force, is drastically overhyped. Without ground forces engaging enemy ground forces in battle, the Luftwaffe would have had very few targets. Sure Germany had to hold back some troops to guard the western coast of Europe, but the point is that they could have pulled it off anyway. If they had done it, Britain would have been doomed along with the rest of the world. The Battle of Britain was not very significant at all for Operation Barbarossa's failure to take Moscow. Hitler's meddling was.

The problem with the assumption that Operation Sea Lion was scrapped only because of losing the Battle of Britain is simple. The British Navy would have made an invasion a complete nightmare to plan, and it probably would have been scrapped anyway.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It has to be remembered that the air war in Operation Barbarossa for 1941 was largely won after 3 days. There were constant air battles for the rest of that year but the Germans had pretty much complete air superiority. Just to give you an example of the scale of losses on both sides the Soviets lost 17000 aircraft for the Luftwaffe's 2000.

Moreover, the extremely bad winter that year often meant that the Luftwaffe were unable to fly any ground support missions to assist the Wehrmacht in the Battle of Moscow. Also, most German planes were simply not designed to operate in such harsh conditions. So airpower did not play any decisive role in the Battle of Moscow. What did was the lack of logistical supply and combat replacements for the Wehrmacht as the average panzer division for example had lost more than half it's combat strength since June '41. Add to that the fact that most of the Wehrmacht were exhausted, were fighting in summer uniforms in the coldest winter for 140 years and the arrival of 25 fresh Siberian divisions and you have a scenario where German collapse was not only likely, but inevitable.

Spyhunter, as I said before, the outcome of the Battle of Britain had no impact on the outcome of Barbarossa. It's true that the Luftwaffe probably would have welcomed the aircraft they lost in the Battle of Britain but had Hitler made the 3 changes to strategy I mentioned previously then this would have been a moot point.

As for calling Nazi Germany the greatest threat to mankind in living memory and maybe of all time you are ignoring history. It's true that they were the greatest threat in modern times but there have been equally great, if not greater threats throughout history. I suggest that you read accounts of the Battles of Thermopylae, Chalons and Liegnitz and you'll realise that alternate outcomes of those battles may have lead to a completely different history for Europe and one where Christianity would have had no place at all.
 
Doppleganger said:
I suggest that you read accounts of the Battles of ... and Liegnitz and you'll realise that alternate outcomes of those battles may have lead to a completely different history for Europe and one where Christianity would have had no place at all.
Click to expand...
Perfectly sound except that an alternate outcome to Liegnitz would amout to what? The Mongols completely massacred the Teutonic Knights ... so exactly how would a different outcome have endangered Christianity?
 
godofthunder9010 said:
Doppleganger said:
I suggest that you read accounts of the Battles of ... and Liegnitz and you'll realise that alternate outcomes of those battles may have lead to a completely different history for Europe and one where Christianity would have had no place at all.
Click to expand...
Perfectly sound except that an alternate outcome to Liegnitz would amout to what? The Mongols completely massacred the Teutonic Knights ... so exactly how would a different outcome have endangered Christianity?
Click to expand...

Well 'may' have endangered Christianity. The Liegnitz battle was different from the others I mentioned because the actual outcome did indicate that an alternate history for Europe was on the cards. As you know the Great Khan died and Batu ordered that the Mongols withdraw back to Krakorum as tradition dictated. So Europe got lucky. But you're right though, and alternate history for that one battle likely would have had very little impact on history.
 
Had Ogedai Khan lived 10-15 more years (he died younger than expected due to his love of overmuch drinking), then we're talking about some seriously earthshattering changes. Now THAT is an alternate timeline that would severiously shake things up. It would have completely rewritten the future map of Europe and they likely would have ended up as part of the domain of the Golden Hoarde.
 
Forging the alliance.

Turning point in world war two.

In what I studied, I can say the creation of Soviet-British-American alliance right after Axis attack on USSR was an important factor in many positive aspects of world war two.

There was a dangerous precedent to it from the Soviet-French-British talks, on the eve of the Soviet-German, that each side would get paranoid and pull its own way. British and Americans were fast to show support upfront, when asked how they feel by Molotov. They were not conservative in words either, which I feel was important later in the talks, when Stalin would not settle for soft support, allowing lend lease to be as big as it was.

I feel that Lend-Lease was important not only material aspect but also in psychological terms. All three got a strong allies. That late summer there was a British-Soviet occupation of Iran. It ended up being an important route of lend-lease by road and rail.

Furthermore, my feeling that the alliance, the belief that you are on the right side allowed the people in the British Empire as well as the United States, and of the Soviet Union to go through a much more peaceful transition in postwar years then what it could of been if the situation was not as consolidated and internal arguments would prevail in wartime.

Main reason I think it was a success is the set up of UN in 1944 that was acceptable enough to all sides to ensure ww2 ended with allies being allies. The nazi government, from what I read through their own materials, had no precedent in history - not before not after. Their defeat and denazification of Germany, plenty important.

-David Ryzhenkov
 
More of a last ditch effort by the Germans to salvage things on the Western Front. The end of the whole game was already assured and Germany didn't have the forces to pull off a victory.
 
I would definately have to say that the Battle of Briain was by far the most decided turning point in the war in Europe. (Midway in Pacific)
The English were the only country during WW2 to fight Germany alone and win! Thier Air Force was outnumbered like 2.5 to 1. They not only won, but they clearly broke Germany's invincible attitude. Some I already know are going to respond to this statement with the rebuttal that Stalingrad was the turning point(Germany lost 300,000 men.) But before Stallingrad, the Brits and Americans captured 250,000 Germans and Italians in N. Africa. Some see this as insignificant, but what would have happened if those 250,000 troops were at Stallingrad? Also, since they failed to capture England, it virtually became a floating unsinkable platform for the RAF and USAAF to bomb Germany into the prehistoric age. Also a good staging point for Western invasion of europe. Im not saying that USA and England won the war, but they should definately get half of the credit at least!
 
BigBert96 said:
I would definately have to say that the Battle of Briain was by far the most decided turning point in the war in Europe. (Midway in Pacific)
The English were the only country during WW2 to fight Germany alone and win! Thier Air Force was outnumbered like 2.5 to 1. They not only won, but they clearly broke Germany's invincible attitude. Some I already know are going to respond to this statement with the rebuttal that Stalingrad was the turning point(Germany lost 300,000 men.) But before Stallingrad, the Brits and Americans captured 250,000 Germans and Italians in N. Africa. Some see this as insignificant, but what would have happened if those 250,000 troops were at Stallingrad? Also, since they failed to capture England, it virtually became a floating unsinkable platform for the RAF and USAAF to bomb Germany into the prehistoric age. Also a good staging point for Western invasion of europe. Im not saying that USA and England won the war, but they should definately get half of the credit at least!
Click to expand...

The RAF won the Battle of Britain because Hitler decided to switch to terror raids on civilians instead. The Luftwaffe were on the brink of actually winning because the fighter pilot pool of the RAF were on the edge of total exhaustion. I don't think you'll find a military historian anywhere who would agree that Germany's invincible attitude was broken as a result. Their armies had just defeated France as no nation had been defeated for centuries. Confidence could not be higher and the BEF had been sent packing back to England leaving behind all their heavy equipment. (BTW I'm a Brit just so you know my perspective on this)

The Afrika Korps losses had no impact on Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviet Union. You have to remember that Rommel only ever had 2 Panzer divisions at his disposal, his forces consisting mainly of Italian forces which were not up to German standards.

http://cosmos.oninetspeed.pt/dak/dak/orderofbattle.htm

Check out that link and you'll see that those forces would have made *zero* difference to the outcome of Barbarossa. Stalingrad as you mentioned was a decisive battle but the Battle of Moscow in December 1941 was probably just as important. This was Germany's best chance to knock the Soviet Union out of the war but delays and Hitler's meddling probably prevented a German victory.

BTW, the military impact of Allied bombing of Germany has been continually overstated. And anyway, victory was already assured by the time D-Day came around. In reality, the only thing D-Day achieved was to ensure that the whole of Western Europe did not become Soviet dominated.

The biggest achievement to victory of the Western Allies was probably Lend-Lease. IMO without this the Soviets would have been defeated by Germany.
 
Doppleganger, Im well aware of the RAF's impending doom in the BofB. I didn't type out the reasons they won, I already know them. THe bottom line is this, Britain won the battle, hands down. Regardless of why, they still won, and they did break the luftwaffes aura of invincibility. Maybe not the whole military populace, but the pilots who flew over England had a change of heart. And I didn't say the loss in Africa affected Barbarossa, I said it would have affected the outcome of Stallingrad in 43. True Rommel only had a handful of panzer and Mech. units. Bot most of WW2 was fought with foot soldiers. Regardless of which front or time period you look at, most of the fighting was done by infantrymen, not panzer units. And you also stated that the bombing was not that effective. Wow! By late 44, 75% of Germany's oil production had been eliminated. How is this not effective?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top