Poll: What was the turning point of World War 2?

[Dele]

Moscow obviously. Even with the success of Stalingrad the victory would have been nearly impossible for Germany, unlike with Moscow.

For those interested in eastern front, you could check this great animation [http://english.pobediteli.ru/flash.html?DR=0] showing all the events of eastern front and movement of German and Russian armies.

 

[Rajin Cajun]

Moscow obviously. Even with the success of Stalingrad the victory would have been nearly impossible for Germany unlike with Moscow.

For those interested in eastern front, you could check this great animation [http://english.pobediteli.ru/flash.html?DR=0] showing all the events of eastern front and movement of German and Russian armies.

Indeed, I don't get why people take Stalingrad as the greatest turning point it was more the final death knell then anything else. Moscow was the Defeat that bogged down Two Army Groups.

 

[Hamsterlad]

The battle of Stalingrad was the turning point of the war

 

[Jacklin]

Your point is justified.
I just tried to say that D-Day was not the midpoint and that there were many other things that happened to make the midpoint of the war.
Your a very good writer by the way.

 

[cheesecake123]

what about the battle of the bulge guys.
because of that germany lost lots of elite tank divisions that would have been very helpfull in the defense of the eastern front.

although the germans did need fuel so i guess that tactic could have been theseable at the time

 

[gh0ti]

what about the battle of the bulge guys.
because of that germany lost lots of elite tank divisions that would have been very helpfull in the defense of the eastern front.

although the germans did need fuel so i guess that tactic could have been theseable at the time

The problem with seeing the Battle of the Bulge as a turning point is that it really was a desperate gamble by Hitler. The war itself was already lost by that point - it was merely a matter of how long Germany could hold out and whether it could make peace on favourable or unfavourable terms. Certainly the Bulge was an important battle, it crippled what little remained of Germany's best fighting forces, but it can't really be said to have changed the outcome of the war. Essentially the problem faced by Germany was the same after as it was before; in the east, the Russians were too numerous, in the west, the Allies were too well equipped. Hitler simply did not have the resources to resist and the fact that this massive thrust was absorbed merely underlines what a dire position Germany was in prior to the Battle of the Bulge.

 

[cheesecake123]

what about the battle of the bulge guys.
because of that germany lost lots of elite tank divisions that would have been very helpfull in the defense of the eastern front.

although the germans did need fuel so i guess that tactic could have been theseable at the time

The problem with seeing the Battle of the Bulge as a turning point is that it really was a desperate gamble by Hitler. The war itself was already lost by that point - it was merely a matter of how long Germany could hold out and whether it could make peace on favourable or unfavourable terms. Certainly the Bulge was an important battle, it crippled what little remained of Germany's best fighting forces, but it can't really be said to have changed the outcome of the war. Essentially the problem faced by Germany was the same after as it was before; in the east, the Russians were too numerous, in the west, the Allies were too well equipped. Hitler simply did not have the resources to resist and the fact that this massive thrust was absorbed merely underlines what a dire position Germany was in prior to the Battle of the Bulge.

i now see that you are correct and i am wrong.

 

[xChevelle24]

I personally think that it was Pearl Harbor that was the turning point, although this may not be correct, to me it makes sense. The U.S. was doing all that it could to NOT intervene in this war, and Paris had already fallen, and London was next. If the Japanese had not bombed Pearl Harbor, Hitler and the 3rd Reich would have been able to expand all the way into London and capture the entire continent. Yes, stalingrad was a very important battle for the russians, but if the Germans were to capture London, they would have been able to completely surround Russia and then conquer it while using their Japanese allies as support.

Thanks to Pearl Harbor, the U.S. entered the war all guns blazing and gave new hope to the Allied Forces in Europe.

But I don't know enough information about ALL the major battles to give a completely accurate guess, but I still think without Pearl Harbor, the U.S. would have entered the war too late, or never at all.

 

[Agent Larkin]

Battle of Stalingrad on the Russian Front. The battle of El Almein on the African front. A toss up between Montecarlo or Malta as the most important in the mediterranian. Western europe would probably be Dunkirk as it allowed Britain (and to lesser extent France) to continue fighting. In the Far East the most important battle was undeniably Midway.

 

[xChevelle24]

Does anyone here besides me think that if the Germans captured Britain, that they would have been able to turn around the Battle of Stalingrad? Or atleast form another offensive after capturing Britain? Idk, maybe I'm just crazy.

Another question: Was the Luftwaffe even used in the Battle of Stalingrad? If not, that's a huge variable to take into account. You have the most powerful airforce in the world that wasn't even being used in Stalingrad, and if they had that would have been devastating to the Russians. But if they had used the Luftwaffe, epic fail Germans!

 

[Madshaw]

I voted the Battle of Moscow, but in my opinion the tipping point was launching Barbarossa without defeating Britain first and thus forcing the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine to fight a two-front war... while stupidly throwing away the valuable propaganda benefit (and free troops to be had!) of being seen as a liberator by getting all ethnic-cleansing on their way through Ukraine and western Russia.

-- Steve

evrything i have to say has already ben said

 

[Zykon TheLich]

Another question: Was the Luftwaffe even used in the Battle of Stalingrad? If not, that's a huge variable to take into account. You have the most powerful airforce in the world that wasn't even being used in Stalingrad, and if they had that would have been devastating to the Russians. But if they had used the Luftwaffe, epic fail Germans!

Probably used to bomb some russian positions, but most of Stalingrad was house to house fighting in the bombed out remains. Aircraft aren't that much use for that.

 

[mr mcshiznit]

The end of Germany occurred when they put that lunatic in power. They had no chance.

You mean the Tactical mastermind that took a battered and broken country and turned it into one of the most destructive and horrifying powers the world has ever seen? That lunatic?..dumbass...

 

[hopeneverdies]

Euro front easily Stalingrad, even though Russia lost a lot more men.
African campaign probably El Alamein, I'll play Battlefield 1942 to check
Pacific theatre I'd say Midway because we proved that we could be just as sneaky as Japan and totally sunk the 4 carriers they had and then the Marianas Island Turkey shoot solidified it

 

[HerrBobo]

I think you could say that Germany lost the war in the 1930's The war fought from '39-'42 was a very diffrent one from '42-'45. Tatics changed alot and for the first time, on a large scale, huge amounts of long range heavy bombers were attacking the heart land of Germany and thus their abailty to wage war. The Luftwaffe, much like the Red Airforce, was desinged as a tatical force to support the army. While this worked very well from '39-'41 after that stage of the war airpower shifted to the strategic foot. Germany could not do this in the early part of the war and had no answer to it when the ailles started bombing. The brass tax is that Germany did not develop an heavy strategic bombers during the '30's and they paid a heavy price for it durning the war; they were unable to bomb Britain into submission and the Russians were able to move their heavy indrusty into Siberia well out of the very limted range of German bombers. That said hindsight is 20/20.

This point though can be expanded some what by Hitler's capping of wepons research in 1941. At that point it looked like Russia was about to crack,and the USA had not joined the fight yet. Why would German need to develop new wepons when she was victorious with the current stock? Again this is hindsight. That said it stands to reason that when it was fully realized that there was to be no quick victory in Russia research was started again. It was too little too late though, too much time had been lost and too many new wepons were rushed into production, the Panther tank, to name but one. Was this decree by Hitler in 1941 what cost Germany the war? Maybe, maybe not, but it is something to consider.

In terms of battles, it is impossible to say that one battle cost Germany the war. It was a war of attrition. No one defeat could do it. It had to be a series of defeats to grind down the foe! Germany could have survived any one of the battles mentioned above and still one the war. Indeed, Germany could have still won back the strategic advantage in Russia after Staliangrad had Hitler used his army correctly. That is to say if had retreted and kept his army mobile instead of having them did in and issue orders not to allow them to retreat. There is also the question of German ailles at Stalingrad. The Romanian troops were not as well trained or as equiped as the Germans, yet they were fighting on the front; plugging holes if you will as so many German divisions were tied up in N. Africa. I is a fact that the Romanain troops were the first to crack under the Sovite onslaught and this allowed the 5th Army to become surrounded. If it had been an all German army would the Russians ahave gotten through? I think maybe yes, but it may have been that their advance would have been slow enough to let a larger part of the army escape.

This leads me to my next point. Germany's failure to take Britian out of the war. The failure of Op. Sealion allowed Britian to carry on the fight, and alos to carry the fight to the Axis in the Balklands and N. Africa. As has been said by many people this tied up German troops and also held up the Russian invasion. Of course it also ment Britian was a base for US and British bombers to attack Germany which did huge damage to the German war machine. Britain did just enough to distract Germany while Russia recoverd from the inital shock of the invasion. Then the combined defeats of El Alamien and Stalingrad put Germany on the back foot.

I do belive though that it would have been possible for Germany to recover from these defeats. Total victory was, perhaps, now out of the question, but an agreeable peace might have been gained; remember in 1942 the German army was still the best trained and eqqupied in the world. However this is mooted some what by the USA joining the war. This was one of the huge blows to Germany.In 1942-43 It still may have been possible to for Germany to issue enough defeats on the allies to get them to agree to a "netural" peace but only if Hitler lay dead or in jail. As it was that did not happen and with combnation of the the defeats of '42 and the entering of combat by the USA in that year things look very grim for Germany. This coupled with the general lack mobilty of the German army and Hitler not allowing them to retreat sealed Germany's doom.

 

[samsprinkle]

All of them rolled into one little ball...or a juicy pie

 

[GoldenRaz]

I wouldn't say a single battle was the sole reason for the war turning on the Nazis. But the descision to ignore the enemy/enemies on the west front and instead start to fight against the (allied) Soviets to the east, thus starting a two-front war, might have had something to do with the Nazis not winning the war.
But then again, I know just about nil about WWII, so maybe my opinion should be ignored...

 

[gh0ti]

I personally think that it was Pearl Harbor that was the turning point, although this may not be correct, to me it makes sense. The U.S. was doing all that it could to NOT intervene in this war, and Paris had already fallen, and London was next. If the Japanese had not bombed Pearl Harbor, Hitler and the 3rd Reich would have been able to expand all the way into London and capture the entire continent. Yes, stalingrad was a very important battle for the russians, but if the Germans were to capture London, they would have been able to completely surround Russia and then conquer it while using their Japanese allies as support.

Thanks to Pearl Harbor, the U.S. entered the war all guns blazing and gave new hope to the Allied Forces in Europe.

But I don't know enough information about ALL the major battles to give a completely accurate guess, but I still think without Pearl Harbor, the U.S. would have entered the war too late, or never at all.

Eh... by the time Pearl Harbor was attacked, the Battle of Britain was long over. Hitler called off his 'plans' to invade Britain long before America entered the war.

I think you could say that Germany lost the war in the 1930's The war fought from '39-'42 was a very diffrent one from '42-'45. Tatics changed alot and for the first time, on a large scale, huge amounts of long range heavy bombers were attacking the heart land of Germany and thus their abailty to wage war. The Luftwaffe, much like the Red Airforce, was desinged as a tatical force to support the army. While this worked very well from '39-'41 after that stage of the war airpower shifted to the strategic foot. Germany could not do this in the early part of the war and had no answer to it when the ailles started bombing. The brass tax is that Germany did not develop an heavy strategic bombers during the '30's and they paid a heavy price for it durning the war; they were unable to bomb Britain into submission and the Russians were able to move their heavy indrusty into Siberia well out of the very limted range of German bombers. That said hindsight is 20/20.

This point though can be expanded some what by Hitler's capping of wepons research in 1941. At that point it looked like Russia was about to crack,and the USA had not joined the fight yet. Why would German need to develop new wepons when she was victorious with the current stock? Again this is hindsight. That said it stands to reason that when it was fully realized that there was to be no quick victory in Russia research was started again. It was too little too late though, too much time had been lost and too many new wepons were rushed into production, the Panther tank, to name but one. Was this decree by Hitler in 1941 what cost Germany the war? Maybe, maybe not, but it is something to consider.

In terms of battles, it is impossible to say that one battle cost Germany the war. It was a war of attrition. No one defeat could do it. It had to be a series of defeats to grind down the foe! Germany could have survived any one of the battles mentioned above and still one the war. Indeed, Germany could have still won back the strategic advantage in Russia after Staliangrad had Hitler used his army correctly. That is to say if had retreted and kept his army mobile instead of having them did in and issue orders not to allow them to retreat. There is also the question of German ailles at Stalingrad. The Romanian troops were not as well trained or as equiped as the Germans, yet they were fighting on the front; plugging holes if you will as so many German divisions were tied up in N. Africa. I is a fact that the Romanain troops were the first to crack under the Sovite onslaught and this allowed the 5th Army to become surrounded. If it had been an all German army would the Russians ahave gotten through? I think maybe yes, but it may have been that their advance would have been slow enough to let a larger part of the army escape.

This leads me to my next point. Germany's failure to take Britian out of the war. The failure of Op. Sealion allowed Britian to carry on the fight, and alos to carry the fight to the Axis in the Balklands and N. Africa. As has been said by many people this tied up German troops and also held up the Russian invasion. Of course it also ment Britian was a base for US and British bombers to attack Germany which did huge damage to the German war machine. Britain did just enough to distract Germany while Russia recoverd from the inital shock of the invasion. Then the combined defeats of El Alamien and Stalingrad put Germany on the back foot.

I do belive though that it would have been possible for Germany to recover from these defeats. Total victory was, perhaps, now out of the question, but an agreeable peace might have been gained; remember in 1942 the German army was still the best trained and eqqupied in the world. However this is mooted some what by the USA joining the war. This was one of the huge blows to Germany.In 1942-43 It still may have been possible to for Germany to issue enough defeats on the allies to get them to agree to a "netural" peace but only if Hitler lay dead or in jail. As it was that did not happen and with combnation of the the defeats of '42 and the entering of combat by the USA in that year things look very grim for Germany. This coupled with the general lack mobilty of the German army and Hitler not allowing them to retreat sealed Germany's doom.

^^ This guy talks a lot of sense. What shouldn't be forgotten is that the German army had been built around the concept that modern wars would be mobile affairs that could be decisively settled in short order. Protracted war fighting ultimately proved beyond the Wehrmacht's capabilities, their problems exacerbated by dependence on horse rather than machine power, the absence of a strategic bomber force and supply problems due to Germany's recently fragile economy (during the 1930s).

 

[Kogarian]

Stalingrad, Midway, and Germany's failure to capture Britain.

*Edited to explain further.

The Battle of Moscow doesn't count as Germany didn't use all the power it had. Most of it's army was resting, and that came into play when they invaded the Caucuses. Midway was the turning point in the Pacific, as the U.S. and Japan seemed to be playing at their own game out there. Germany's failure to decimate the Allies at Dunkirk, I think, did help raise moral to a point where the Battle of Britain was more bearable. And because Britain held out, it allowed a staging point for Operation Overlord.

A question for UKers, though. What was it like before the U.S. actually entered? I haven't seen too many WW2 books that talked about what you guys went through.

And for you Aussies, what was WW2 like for you? Constant fear of invasion? I've heard the Royal Navy and the U.S. navy had ships stationed there, but I don't know when or to what extent.

 

[Sir Ollie]

Battle of Stalingrad simple

A question for UKers, though. What was it like before the U.S. actually entered? I haven't seen too many WW2 books that talked about what you guys went through.

Ah ok if i can remember, The US suppiled the UK throughout the war and these ships were sunk by Uboats supplies were low. life sucked

The battle of Britain if i can remember was pretty much attacks by the luftwaffe trying to knock out our airforce and also destroying key factories, Germany was near their goal to destroy the RAF when a luftwaffe bomber accidentally attacked a city changing Hitlers orders to demoralise British support for the war.

Please correct me if i'm wrong (my mind is to fuzzy)