Turning point of WW2

BigBert96 said:
By late 44, 75% of Germany's oil production had been eliminated. How is this not effective?
Click to expand...
And most of that was destroyed the same year. 1944. :lol:

Yep the USA and UK were chasing the failed theory of bombing the enemy into submission. Nobody knew for sure it wouldn't work at the time of course. The RAF and USAAC finally woke up to the fact that there are more vunerable targets than civilians and manufacturing that just went underground.

I disagree with BofB only because at the end of it, the Allies were still losing the war. Very important victory even if Operation Sea Lion was completely undoable.
 
I almost forgot, the Battle of the Atlantic. Very close one at first. I think if Germany won this one, UK would surely have had to sue for peace. What do yall think?
 
Always hated the term "Battle of the Atlantic". Its the most misleading term concievable. If the thing was a single naval engagment ... then its a "battle". Kinda hard to say about the Battle of the Atlantic. Which part?
 
BigBert96 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Well yes but you could also argue that the Luftwaffe lost it instead of the RAF winning it. I'm British. I was brought up on the Battle of Britain and the Dambusters and all that kinda stuff. I'm intensely proud of my country and heritage. But objectively it was a battle that the Luftwaffe allowed themselves to lose. There's no getting away from that.

The units in the Afrika Korps, the 2 panzer divisions aside, would not have been missed at Stalingrad. Please trust me on this. I've done a lot of reading on the Eastern Front and I have fairly good knowledge on the subject. Look at the forces that Rommel had. Most were Italian divisions that would not have been suitable for combat on the Ostfront. One of the main reasons for the Stalingrad collapse was that the Soviets smashed the Romanian 3rd and 4th Armies that held the left flank of the German 6th Army, knowing these armies were not up to German standards and lacked armor and AT guns. The Italian Armies were generally not regarded as good as the Romanian Armies.

It's true that infantry units were by far the most numerous type of unit in WW2 but it was the application of armor that almost always decided any major battle. I'm not sure of your level of knowledge so please excuse me if I come over as patronizing - it is not my intention to do so. Armored spearheads punching through weakened points in the enemy defensive line was pretty much standard doctrine for all armies by 1944. Armor, or the lack thereof, was absolutely critical to operational success.

I never said that the Allied bombing of occupied Europe wasn't effective, just that it's impact is overstated (it is). Germany was practically defeated by the time the bombing campaign had any real impact. Please take a look at this link that backs up my viewpoint.

http://www.onwar.com/articles/f9809.htm
 
BigBert96 said:
I almost forgot, the Battle of the Atlantic. Very close one at first. I think if Germany won this one, UK would surely have had to sue for peace. What do yall think?
Click to expand...
Prolly should rephrase my response. The "Battle of the Atlantic" begins in 1939 and ends in 1945 with the fall of Germany. The whole thing had a lot of ups and downs for both sides. If Germany could have succeeded in stopping all shipping accross the Atlantic, yes the Germans probably win the war. Can't count it as a "turning point" though since it spans the entire war.
 
I'd say
1. Stalingrad - This ultimately destroyed the German Forces
2. Pearl Harbor - America enters the war
3. D-Day - Germany, already ground down by losing 3 million in Russia has to fight a 2nd front.

Other notable points are:
- Battle of the Bulge. Germany suffered casualties throughout the war but the significance here was that Germany could no longer find replacements for these losses.

- Midway. Japan says Hasta la Vista to its carrier fleet.

- Capture of Iwo Jima. Bombing the Japanese heartland becomes possible.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
I'd say
1. Stalingrad - This ultimately destroyed the German Forces
2. Pearl Harbor - America enters the war
3. D-Day - Germany, already ground down by losing 3 million in Russia has to fight a 2nd front.

Other notable points are:
- Battle of the Bulge. Germany suffered casualties throughout the war but the significance here was that Germany could no longer find replacements for these losses.

- Midway. Japan says Hasta la Vista to its carrier fleet.

- Capture of Iwo Jima. Bombing the Japanese heartland becomes possible.
Click to expand...

Agree with Points 1 and 2, although Stalingrad was a strategic defeat for Germany at which the Soviets suffered nearly 3 times the casualties. Germany could still have forced a stalemate. However, by the time D-Day occurred Germany were already beaten, was just a matter of time when. All D-Day did was stop Soviet domination over all of Europe.

The Battle of the Bulge had no impact on the outcome of WW2 whatsoever. Have you ever heard of Operation Bagration? That also occurred in 1944 and the Germans suffered nearly 4 times as many casualties. That battle was the final nail in the coffin of Nazi Germany, not D-Day and certainly not the Battle of the Bulge.

Midway was a decisive point in the war yes but not a turning point. Likewise with Iwo Jima.
 
I'll disagree with you on Midway Dopp. Midway is a defining turning point for the Pacific Campaign, though that side of the war was probably a lot less crucial to the outcome. Midway took the Pacific War from a route to an even battle and with US production already in swing it was mostly all downhill from there for Japan.
 
The US says they had the most action in liberation of europe. most european historians say that the russians destroyed the german fighting machine so when the US came it was like Germany attacking Poland
 
Unfortunately, the Cold War had a tremendous impact on how the story of World War II was told in all non-Communist nations. Three primary things to blame:
1.) The USSR couldn't seem to offer anything close to an accurate accounting of the Eastern Front. They conveniently deleted items they didn't like (Operation Mars being a noteable example). The Soviet account mistells Kursk, the details of Stalingrad, virtually all of Barbarossa and numerous other battles. Were it not for these inaccuracies and lies, the Western World would probably be much more thankful for the immense and bloody sacrifice that the Russian people made on the Eastern Front.
2.) Giving proper credit to the USSR may have seemed unwise during the Cold War. Patting your enemy on the back, etc. Also, the Soviet Union's excuse for occupying Eastern Europe and forcing them to become Communist states was to ensure that the USSR had a security buffer between them and potentially hostile nations. So the USA and NATO members downplayed the USSR's role throughout the Cold War.
3.) Western Europe and the USA have a bad habit of only understanding history from their own point of view. A study on World War I will focus almost entirely on the Western Front, leaving a student of history to wonder if anything ever happened anywhere else. Any semi-knowledgeable person from the USA and Western Europe will recognize the name "Erwin Rommel". This is not because he was necessarily the best or the brightest German commander. Its because the West fought him numerous times, and were astounded by his abilities. We don't know names like "von Bock" or "Manstein" or "Guderian" very well because they were mostly on the Eastern Front. We didn't fight them = they were irrelevant <-- this seems to be the Western trend for WW2

There is no reasonable theory of a "Turning Point of WW2" nor "how we won?" without a lot of mention of the Eastern Front.
 
Here's my view of the turning points in WW2 ;)
In date order.
Battle of Britain. 1940
Kept Britain in the war, forced the Germans into fighting a two front war, and ensured the eventual involvement of the USA in the war against Germany.

Battle of Moscow 1941
With the failure of the offensive outside Moscow in late 41 Germany was faced with a long war, one she was not ready for, or capable of winning.

Pearl Harbor 1941
With this attack the Japanese brought the USA into the war against the axis nations, ensuring their eventual defeat.

After these battles the eventual defeat of the Axis powers was just a matter of time
 
redcoat said:
Here's my view of the turning points in WW2 ;)
In date order.
Battle of Britain. 1940
Kept Britain in the war, forced the Germans into fighting a two front war, and ensured the eventual involvement of the USA in the war against Germany.

Battle of Moscow 1941
With the failure of the offensive outside Moscow in late 41 Germany was faced with a long war, one she was not ready for, or capable of winning.

Pearl Harbor 1941
With this attack the Japanese brought the USA into the war against the axis nations, ensuring their eventual defeat.

After these battles the eventual defeat of the Axis powers was just a matter of time
Click to expand...

Agree with turning points 2 (somewhat) and 3, but cannot agree that the Battle of Britain was a turning point as it did not change in any way the balance of power and Operation Sealion would very likely not have been attempted anyway. You can't really say that Germany was in a 2-front war (unless you count North Africa) until Operation Husky began in mid 1943.

I wouldn't agree that the defeat of the Axis powers was just a matter of time either. Although the Battle of Moscow was Germany's best chance to KO the Soviet Union, Germany was very much still in the ascendancy all through 1942 and still had a good chance to defeat the Soviet Union in 42/43.
 
Doppleganger said:
Agree with turning points 2 (somewhat) and 3, but cannot agree that the Battle of Britain was a turning point as it did not change in any way the balance of power and Operation Sealion would very likely not have been attempted anyway.
Click to expand...
Quite true. However the important part of the Battle of Britain was that it was fought in the first place. and while it didn't lead immeditely to a second front it helped ensure that the USA would get involved in the war against Germany and that there would be a second front
I wouldn't agree that the defeat of the Axis powers was just a matter of time either. Although the Battle of Moscow was Germany's best chance to KO the Soviet Union, Germany was very much still in the ascendancy all through 1942 and still had a good chance to defeat the Soviet Union in 42/43.
Click to expand...
Well maybe I was over-egging the statement a little, but I tend to take the view that the German 1941 offensive was the most realistic chance to defeat the SU. After this while the Nazi's may have been in with a chance of success the odds were starting to turn against them
 
I agree with drilldown master that when the USA came to help out in Europe, most of Germany has been taken by USSR, and all the USA could do was just march in to the city and say they defeated Germany, while USSR did all the real work. USA was just waiting out a moment when the USSR had Germany beaten , then only did USA forces came into action, which wasnt much help.

And Doppleganger u say that D-day stopped the Soviets from takin over all of Europe, while they liberated all of Europe, by destroying the German forces in their territory, and they didnt keep the land of the countries they liberated. they gave it back fair and square. And i also think that the Berlin wall was a good idea to do beacuse then one side of Berlin could actually do what French and British failed to, and that is keep the German forces under control and dont let them expand to start another WW3.
 
Kirill K said:
And Doppleganger u say that D-day stopped the Soviets from takin over all of Europe, while they liberated all of Europe, by destroying the German forces in their territory, and they didnt keep the land of the countries they liberated. they gave it back fair and square. And i also think that the Berlin wall was a good idea to do beacuse then one side of Berlin could actually do what French and British failed to, and that is keep the German forces under control and dont let them expand to start another WW3.
Click to expand...

Well technically they may have 'given back' the land that they conquered from the Germans but that didnt stop them installing puppet regimes in every country they liberated ala Poland, Hungary, Romania and so on. Communist regimes would have been installed in the whole of Germany, Holland, Belgium, France, Italy and perhaps Spain too if D-Day hadn't happened. So although you are correct to say that the USSR wouldn't have occupied these countries, their sphere of influence would have extended over the whole of mainland Europe.
 
Well you say that they were about to install communist government there, but look what USA is doing now. They overthrown Sadam and are installing there own right hand President in Iraq, and other countries that already were infected with USA's "righteous government". But when he wanted to overthrow the Cuban president Russia held them because they were goin to far.
 
Kirill K said:
Well you say that they were about to install communist government there, but look what USA is doing now. They overthrown Sadam and are installing there own right hand President in Iraq, and other countries that already were infected with USA's "righteous government". But when he wanted to overthrow the Cuban president Russia held them because they were goin to far.
Click to expand...

it is true, there has to be an eastern-american power ratio.
now that the SU is gone the US does everything that they wish.
I was hoping EU to do something about it, but it seems to be more of a commercial union
 
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.
 
I would have to say in the war in the pacific, the battle for Kokoda (and the PNG campaign in general). It was the point at which the Japanese army finally was slowed and bogged down during their route of the pacific.

If it wasn't for the Australian effort there, they would have taken PNG and ended up in Northern Australia. That would have been a big problem for all involved.

In terms of the European campaign, I would say D-Day, and the Battle Of Stalingrad.

I would also say the British Merchant Navy campaign in the North Atlantic from 1939 to 1943 was important, not as a turn around, but if it had been broken by the Germans then the war would have changed direction again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top