Poll: What was the turning point of World War 2?
- Thread starter Prometherion
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The turning point of World War II was the so-called "Lötzen decision", when Hitler ordered Guderian's Second Panzer Army to halt the final assault on Moscow in favor of an attack towards Kiev. The resulting battles, while outstanding victories, prevented the Germans from capturing Moscow in '41, which would have been decisive.
For a full-length discussion of this topic, check out the masterful Hitler's Panzers East [http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Panzers-East-World-Reinterpreted/dp/0806125810].
For a full-length discussion of this topic, check out the masterful Hitler's Panzers East [http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Panzers-East-World-Reinterpreted/dp/0806125810].
The turning point was as soon as Hitler decided to attack Russia. At that point he was fighting a war on both fronts, something he was told to avoid but I'm guessing Hitler thought his army could have beat the Red Army. My history professor has told me many times that in his opinion that if he had not attacked Russia, the war may have ended differently. Maybe but we'll never know now.
I'm going to have to go with the Battle of Dunkirk/Battle of Britain. Hitler's failure to subdue Britain had long reaching consequences that get overlooked by many due to the scale of conflicts later on.
Here are a few just off the top of my head:
Hitler could have committed wholly to the Russian front in 1941
- without Britain he would have been unopposed in the Mid East/North Africa, giving him access to oil
- Germany would not have had to rescue Italy in the Mediterranean theatre by invading Greece and the Greek islands
- the Luftwaffe would have been at full strength and better able to support the army
- Germany gets a year of peace to plan and rearm in
The Americans would not have got involved in Europe
- no base from which America could have attacked Germany
- no moral impetus for them to do so
No aid for the Russians
- allies provided significant financial aid and heavy industry materials through arctic convoys, many launched from Britain
There are very good cases for Stalingrad and Moscow being the turning point of the war, but they would have been very different affairs had Britain either fallen or made peace in Spring 1940.
Now a riposte to another poster who caught my eye:
"I mean Hitler had a NON-Attack Treaty with Stalin...and he BROKE IT?
With the largest, harshest, coldest country in modern society?
Stupid...downright stupid."
Hitler was certainly misguided to attack Russia in 1941, but stupid he most certainly was not. There were very good reasons to think that an attack on the USSR at that time would be successful. Chief among these was "The Winter War" between Russia and Finland, where the shortcomings of the Soviet military were highlighted - it was badly led, reliant on terrible equipment and quite evidently a shambles in its organisation.
Further, German confidence was running high. They had crushed the mighty French in a mere six weeks in 1940, why should Russia, the sick man, be any different? Not only was the Russian army in a dire state, but so was its airforce, which was almost entirely lacking in modern fighters or bombers, and those that it did have were frequently unready for action.
Then, you have to consider the mentality of Hitler. What he did, he did not do for strategic reasons, but ideological ones. He believed Russia was the key to the longevity of the Reich - the great expanse of Lebensraum for the Aryan people.
Finally, this non-aggression pact. SO MUCH IS MADE OF THIS. But the truth is, both sides knew that it was a sham. They hated one another and war between the two was inevitable. The USSR was not an innocent bystander - the stated goal of the communist party was to socialise the entire world. They had already fought by proxy in the Spanish Civil War. Stalin signed the pact in the hope that he could rearm Russia sufficiently to fight the Germans when their attack came. Hitler declared war in the hope that he could destroy the Soviets while the military balance was still in his favour, which it unquestionably was in the summer of 1941.
Here are a few just off the top of my head:
Hitler could have committed wholly to the Russian front in 1941
- without Britain he would have been unopposed in the Mid East/North Africa, giving him access to oil
- Germany would not have had to rescue Italy in the Mediterranean theatre by invading Greece and the Greek islands
- the Luftwaffe would have been at full strength and better able to support the army
- Germany gets a year of peace to plan and rearm in
The Americans would not have got involved in Europe
- no base from which America could have attacked Germany
- no moral impetus for them to do so
No aid for the Russians
- allies provided significant financial aid and heavy industry materials through arctic convoys, many launched from Britain
There are very good cases for Stalingrad and Moscow being the turning point of the war, but they would have been very different affairs had Britain either fallen or made peace in Spring 1940.
Now a riposte to another poster who caught my eye:
"I mean Hitler had a NON-Attack Treaty with Stalin...and he BROKE IT?
With the largest, harshest, coldest country in modern society?
Stupid...downright stupid."
Hitler was certainly misguided to attack Russia in 1941, but stupid he most certainly was not. There were very good reasons to think that an attack on the USSR at that time would be successful. Chief among these was "The Winter War" between Russia and Finland, where the shortcomings of the Soviet military were highlighted - it was badly led, reliant on terrible equipment and quite evidently a shambles in its organisation.
Further, German confidence was running high. They had crushed the mighty French in a mere six weeks in 1940, why should Russia, the sick man, be any different? Not only was the Russian army in a dire state, but so was its airforce, which was almost entirely lacking in modern fighters or bombers, and those that it did have were frequently unready for action.
Then, you have to consider the mentality of Hitler. What he did, he did not do for strategic reasons, but ideological ones. He believed Russia was the key to the longevity of the Reich - the great expanse of Lebensraum for the Aryan people.
Finally, this non-aggression pact. SO MUCH IS MADE OF THIS. But the truth is, both sides knew that it was a sham. They hated one another and war between the two was inevitable. The USSR was not an innocent bystander - the stated goal of the communist party was to socialise the entire world. They had already fought by proxy in the Spanish Civil War. Stalin signed the pact in the hope that he could rearm Russia sufficiently to fight the Germans when their attack came. Hitler declared war in the hope that he could destroy the Soviets while the military balance was still in his favour, which it unquestionably was in the summer of 1941.
In any case, numbers matter
Hitler was piss scared of Stalin, he found the west to be a pawn, compared to a massive hulking Soviet reign. When D-Day occured, the tiny 250,000 troops (mostly not American) were insignificant compared to what was happening in the east.
Just because it was the largest Amphibious assault ever, does not mean it was the most significant.
The Eastern Front was the largest front ever, the most total troops mobilized ever, the heaviest losses ever.
You cannot beat the beastly size of the Eastern front, plus D-Day being the most important in WW2 is insubstancial, look what everybody else is saying.
Hitler was piss scared of Stalin, he found the west to be a pawn, compared to a massive hulking Soviet reign. When D-Day occured, the tiny 250,000 troops (mostly not American) were insignificant compared to what was happening in the east.
Just because it was the largest Amphibious assault ever, does not mean it was the most significant.
The Eastern Front was the largest front ever, the most total troops mobilized ever, the heaviest losses ever.
You cannot beat the beastly size of the Eastern front, plus D-Day being the most important in WW2 is insubstancial, look what everybody else is saying.
voted stalingrad, but i meant moscow. in reality, it was hitler's poor decision to invade russia that was the turning point, as good as the german troops were, they never stood a chance in the russian winter. Hell, even if they invaded in spring/summer (which would mean that most of their mechinized wouldn't freeze up, making them MUCH more powerful) it wasn't a wise choice to have the battle on another front. if they'd waited til at least england was taken, there'd be alot more germans about the place.
Well, Hitler almost defeated the Russians and took Stalingrad but he had to fight a second front so he was low on troops (also, he sent 1/2 of the 6th army to stalingrad and 1/2 to the oil feilds which was retarded, but he would have had a better chance of winning if attacked one then the other.), he couldnt supply them do to lack of planes, they werent prepared for the harsh winter and they couldnt reinforce them. so basically it was a shit storm of unfortunate events. as for the question...
Mid-way for Japan
Stalingrad for Germany
Mid-way for Japan
Stalingrad for Germany
Nazi germany would have won the war on Russia before the winter if they didnt had to save the Italians in Greece. Cause the one of the regiments lost so much time in Greece when they reached Russia winter was already upon them and the Russian front was doomed to failed. They you just stack having two battle fronts open, the suplies/reinforcements arriving to late and all the crap decisions when it comes for tactical war, you end up losing a war. With the Nazi troops scattered through the Russian front, the uprisings in France and while the nazis lost the war in Russia, Britain saw a opening managed to think clearly, took a deep breath and won major battles in North Africa due to a Nazi army being badly supplied and being redeployed to other fronts.
D-Day was the final nail in the coffin.
Also its to note that Germany only one of greatest General's and field tacticians ever Rommel, lucky for us Hitler should have heard him more often.
So ironicly for Hitler..he lost the war cause he had to safe his stupid ally.
D-Day was the final nail in the coffin.
Also its to note that Germany only one of greatest General's and field tacticians ever Rommel, lucky for us Hitler should have heard him more often.
So ironicly for Hitler..he lost the war cause he had to safe his stupid ally.
That's really funny, I was just about to put my two cents in about the battle of Kursk. If I recall correctly, that was the largest tank engagement in history. I could be wrong about that, my Russian History class was last semester. Anyway, it was the last major military offensive in Russia on the part of Germany, and the first steps that Russia was taking to get out of their own backyard.Prometherion said:
If you are interested in reading a very good book about the Russian military in WWII, you should read "A Writer at War" by Vasily Grossman. It's a fantastic book, quite the eye opener on many different things.
Sheer numbers alone don't indicate turning points.Jacklin said:
Whist the Russian campaign may have been a major event, and perhaps a major turning point, D-Day at least allowed the allies a foothold in "Fortress Europe" and safe ports through which to invade and liberate Europe. D-Day might not have been possible if Hitler hadn't opened up a second front and started loosing through bad tactical decisions (not striking Moscow, going on through the Winter instead of falling back and digging in etc).
None of this (D-day) would have been possible without Britain being a free, largely-unscathed country (morale and training-wise we were lagging behind, but we were producing equipment quickly and still had a lot of infrastructure standing); giving the allies somewhere to launch the assualt, and bombing campaigns, from.
America wouldn't even have been involved, meaning Britain, though it could carry out D-day alone (or rather, with colonial support such as Canadians, Anzacs and Indians) it would have been a last-ditch effort (due to a lack of food and oil supplies, which came from America), without Pearl Harbour dragging them into the war. This also cut off American supply to the Germans (yes, they were selling the Germans stuff too, it's what happens with isolationist policies).
Japan wouldn't have been forced to attack Pearl Harbour if it wasn't for signing an alliance with Hitler, and for the humanitarian crimes in China (since America only cut off the oil supply, and the whole attack was because Japan was short of oil so wanted to neutralise America's Pacific Fleet and go and get oil from other countries').
America might still have been defeated by Japan had they not had outstanding luck eliminating Japan's carriers at the Battle of Midway (and Japan's bad luck of not eliminating them in Pearl Harbour).
Lord, WW2 may not have even happened if Clemenceau wasn't so eager to punish Germany for WW1. Woodrow WIlson counselled against the harsh reparations and military limitations, and Lloyd George (though he wanted small reparations to fix what was done to France and British lives) was also against harsh measures.
The smaller campaigns through Africa and Italy meant that Hitler was kept on his toes, and the defeats of his armies (especially in Africa) prevented a consolidation of resoures, new recruits and re-deployment of forces in foreign theatres.
Anyway, I'm sure I've gone off making a point...oh yes, sheer numbers don't matter. Essentially, I don't think any *battle* was the turning point of WW2.
The turning points were, in my opinion:
1) Capture of the Enigma Machine
2) Germany turning to "super weapons" (such as the Konnig Tiger) that were rolled out too soon and had too many problems/maintainance and supply issues/too little too late to compete with Allied production (both American/British production of Shermans/Churchills and Russian T-34s).
3) Severe bad luck on the part of the Axis forces (particularly the severity of the Russian winter, the fact Carriers weren't in port in Pearl Harbour, that Hitler stopped bombing the Airfields to try to break morale - when a few more days of bombardment would have crippled the RAF, that the American squadrons sank the major Japanese carriers at Midway - finding them by luck, that Monty was able to turn defeats into victories in Africa and so on)
Had Germany's codes not been broken then they would have been more successful in sinking American-British and British-Russian supply convoys; if they had stuck to "normal" tanks and/or begun research into thier jet fighters sooner they may have broken the allied forces, had Hitler not forces his generals' hands creating bad decisions and had they had a little more luck then things might be totally, totally different. None of these are a single battle, but rather the culmination of all coming together (ie, had D-Day not been underway, or Britain fallen and America out the war, then I'm sure the defeats in Russia wouldn't have been so disasterous).
I've already voted "Other" for the mighty Enigma machine. Intelligence is what makes-or-breaks wars (and sheer good luck).
Read Antony Beevor's excellent book Stalingrad and the answer to the poll becomes obvious. The elimination of the 4th Panzer Army and 6th Army by the Soviet encirclement meant that the Wehrmacht would not again seriously threaten the Soviet heartland. Germany was on the back foot from that point forward.
Well since D-Day is nothing more then the kickoff marker for a Combat Operation that is pretty broad. I am sure you meant Operation Overlord which is the proper name. D-Day is nothing more then an operation designator that shows day for beginning offensive operations.Twilight_guy said:
I say D-day because it is more easily recognizable. Also, the turning point is just that, a point, not a turning offensive. I would say the day of D-day for Operation overlord, which most people recognize as just D-day is the turning point.Rajin Cajun said:
I went with Stalingrad, but there were three things that happened so close together that it officially spelled the doom of the Nazi regime:
1. Germany declared war on us after Pearl Harbor.
The led to the US allying with everyone else and lending them tons of military equipment and scrap metal. Russia made the best use of the resources lent to them, and it helped them turn a stalemate into a Red Tide. We also lent parts to Britain and the Greeks, helping them foster greater resistance for a counter-attack.
2. Germany lost Stalingrad.
Along with the Russians getting a new influx of resources to bolster their losses when the Germans took the Caucasus - one of the largest resource-producing areas for Russia - the morale crushing defeat at Stalingrad forced the Nazis to lose entire brigades falling back. Had they won there, they would have had somewhere to sit and recoup. As they didn't win, they hiked it back with less food, water and ammunition than is typically required for a fighting retreat.
3. Italian and Spanish facists are finally obliterated and surrender.
This in particular put a squeeze on the Germans, forcing them to pull essential troops from the East Front trying to fight a holding war against the Russians.
The Battle of Britain was another turning point, because it broke the Luftwaffe's back. Without their vaulted, feared air force, the Germans began to suffer horrible straffing and bombing runs on fortified positions throughout both the East and West Fronts.
1. Germany declared war on us after Pearl Harbor.
The led to the US allying with everyone else and lending them tons of military equipment and scrap metal. Russia made the best use of the resources lent to them, and it helped them turn a stalemate into a Red Tide. We also lent parts to Britain and the Greeks, helping them foster greater resistance for a counter-attack.
2. Germany lost Stalingrad.
Along with the Russians getting a new influx of resources to bolster their losses when the Germans took the Caucasus - one of the largest resource-producing areas for Russia - the morale crushing defeat at Stalingrad forced the Nazis to lose entire brigades falling back. Had they won there, they would have had somewhere to sit and recoup. As they didn't win, they hiked it back with less food, water and ammunition than is typically required for a fighting retreat.
3. Italian and Spanish facists are finally obliterated and surrender.
This in particular put a squeeze on the Germans, forcing them to pull essential troops from the East Front trying to fight a holding war against the Russians.
The Battle of Britain was another turning point, because it broke the Luftwaffe's back. Without their vaulted, feared air force, the Germans began to suffer horrible straffing and bombing runs on fortified positions throughout both the East and West Fronts.
Dunkirk, if Hitler hadn't had wanted the Luftwaffe, instead of the army, to deliver the killing stroke to the commonwealth expeditionary force, who were then delayed more a hundred thousand commonwealth forces would have been captured/killed. Which kept Britain still in the war, with the Battle of Britain soon to follow.
As someone else said, the numbers alone do not necessarily indicate a turning point, but you also underestimate the scale of Operation Overlord - within a month there were nearly 1.5 million allied soldiers debarked in France. Are you telling me that a corresponding number of German soldiers transferring to the East would not have made a difference? The Germans moreover, always saw the Western Front as the more threatening one. They could concede vast amounts of territory in the east without Germany itself being in danger of attack. In the West, every mile lost was critical.Jacklin said:
Stalingrad was an absolutely crushing blow to the German military machine - I don't think anyone can deny that. But it should also be asked, why did Germany lose at Stalingrad? Hitler kept crack divisions in France and right across the thousands of miles of European coastland in anticipation of an Allied invasion. These were critical resources that might have been employed in Russia had Britain have made peace in 1940. Further, by the time we get to Stalingrad, Hitler has already made a critical error - failing to take Moscow and not properly equipping his troops for the winter. Had he realised this, he could have held ground, fortified and waited for the counter-attack. As it was, his overconfidence led him to try to destroy the Soviet army by the end of 1941, causing him to get caught out on the offensive in Stalingrad and other places.
pearl harbor becuase if it wasnt for that then America wouldn't have gotten involved (95% percent chance that they wouldn't) and then Britain and Russia wouldn't have gotten the support they needed to fend off the German War Machine