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

[Lord George]

Battle of Britain was a major turning point because if Hitler had been successful, the rest of the world would be pretty much screwed not just tactically with Hitler having a major new industrial centre and also being free to commit more forces to Russia but also morally it would have been a huge blow if you knew that , one of the main allies, that had already beaten off 1 world war had fallen you'd have big doubts about your chances

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

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.

You do not see the moral effect countiunus bombing runs would have on russian moral.

Hell, the germans could have just set up outside and ate popcorn while the luffwaffe bombed the city into dust, and by that the russians.

As many as the russian infantry were numerous, they can't take out aircraft. They can swarm infantry, and decimate tanks with their own tanks. But, aircraft are another beast entirely. Tanks can't hit them, and that is what the russians were bankrolling at the time with the resources they had.


That said, with all the innovations Germany was pushing in their airforce. They never went into studying and creating planes for long-range bombing runs.

 

[Mardy]

I'd say Stalingrad, after that the germans were pretty much were screwed and fled.

 

[soren7550]

I have to say Pearl Harbor because that's what caused America's involvement in the war. And that's what set the ball rolling for a lot of other events in the war. It was sort of the beginning of the end for the Axis powers.

 

[Danzaivar]

I have to say Pearl Harbor because that's what caused America's involvement in the war. And that's what set the ball rolling for a lot of other events in the war. It was sort of the beginning of the end for the Axis powers.

Would have been useless if the Battle of Britain was won by Germany, without a foot-hold in Europe, the US would have been screwed had they tried to assault from across the Atlantic.

I'd say Stalingrad was the biggest tide-turner. The Battle of Britain was important, but it was more about 'holding the line' than 'turning the tide'.

 

[Sindre1]

Norwegian heavy water sabotage.
Without that, the Germans would have had Atom-bombs!

 

[Danzaivar]

D-Day or Op. Overlord was as much a turning point as any of the other battles mentioned here. What I mean is it was a decisive defeat for the Germans. I dont really see how people can say Stalingrad (or wherever) was the turning point. The battle for Stalingrad ended on 2nd of Feb 1943 it was another 2+ years before the war ended. Stalingrad alone was not enough to be turning point, no one battle is. I suppose if I really really had to pick one battle, it would be the Battle of Berlin. That is the only battle that on its own turned the war, while also ending it. See what I'm getting at?

You don't really get what a 'turning point' is. It's where a side goes from winning to losing. Battle of Berlin didn't turn a damn thing round, the Nazi's went from 'losing' to 'losing'.

A six year war, Nazi's mostly winning for 4 years, then 2 years of them being pushed back against with their borders constantly shrinking. How the hell can you not call that the 'turning point'?

 

[Agayek]

On the European front, it was almost assuredly the failed German invasion of Russia that turned teh tide.

On the Pacific front (yes, no matter what people tell you they were almost 2 separate wars), the Battle of Midway I believe was the turning point. I haven't studied the Pacific as much as the European, so I may be wrong though.

 

[LordMarcusX]

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...

You mean the lunatic who, after building his war-torn country up from basically ground level, ran it into the ground again? Dumbass?

 

[LordMarcusX]

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

Not true. If Hitler hadn't become so power hungry during the campaign, the Germans and their alliances may very well have won the war.

...except that Hitler DID become power hungry during the campaign, making him the lunatic that destroyed Germany's chances of successfully waging war.

 

[LordMarcusX]

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

Why not?

The soviets won and Stalin was just as much of a lunatic as Hitler.

Stalin was ruthless, but he did a good job not overextending the power of the Soviet Union beyond its capacity to control the situation. (His descendants in power would not be so wise. Well, maybe up until the collapse of the USSR.)

Hitler believed he could do no wrong, and that any fact that contradicted his belief in his superiority, even if it was staring him in the face, had to be a lie. He was also ruthless, but he overextended Germany's capacity to control the situations it was in. He seems to have lacked the ability to fully grasp the consequences of his orders. Genuinely insane, in some respects; hence, Germany had no chance of winning once they put that man in power.

 

[LordMarcusX]

Ha. I believe my icon speaks for itself. .-.

 

[hermes]

Mostly, I think it was the invasion attempt on Russia (particularly Moscow) that turn the tide of the war. Not only were the Germans unsuccessful in their attempt, but the end result was that their troops have being decimated and grow so thin that they lost most of the grip on western europe.

 

[HerrBobo]

D-Day or Op. Overlord was as much a turning point as any of the other battles mentioned here. What I mean is it was a decisive defeat for the Germans. I dont really see how people can say Stalingrad (or wherever) was the turning point. The battle for Stalingrad ended on 2nd of Feb 1943 it was another 2+ years before the war ended. Stalingrad alone was not enough to be turning point, no one battle is. I suppose if I really really had to pick one battle, it would be the Battle of Berlin. That is the only battle that on its own turned the war, while also ending it. See what I'm getting at?

You don't really get what a 'turning point' is. It's where a side goes from winning to losing. Battle of Berlin didn't turn a damn thing round, the Nazi's went from 'losing' to 'losing'.

A six year war, Nazi's mostly winning for 4 years, then 2 years of them being pushed back against with their borders constantly shrinking. How the hell can you not call that the 'turning point'?

You have missed my point. I was stating that no battle on its own was enough to win the war. No battle on its own was enough to be the turning point of the war. It needed a series of defeats to turn the war against German. If you had read my other posts you would understand this. The point I was making about the Battle of Berlin was that it is the only battle, that on its own cost Germany the war, because it was the last one. Get it now?

 

[Danzaivar]

D-Day or Op. Overlord was as much a turning point as any of the other battles mentioned here. What I mean is it was a decisive defeat for the Germans. I dont really see how people can say Stalingrad (or wherever) was the turning point. The battle for Stalingrad ended on 2nd of Feb 1943 it was another 2+ years before the war ended. Stalingrad alone was not enough to be turning point, no one battle is. I suppose if I really really had to pick one battle, it would be the Battle of Berlin. That is the only battle that on its own turned the war, while also ending it. See what I'm getting at?

You don't really get what a 'turning point' is. It's where a side goes from winning to losing. Battle of Berlin didn't turn a damn thing round, the Nazi's went from 'losing' to 'losing'.

A six year war, Nazi's mostly winning for 4 years, then 2 years of them being pushed back against with their borders constantly shrinking. How the hell can you not call that the 'turning point'?

You have missed my point. I was stating that no battle on its own was enough to win the war. No battle on its own was enough to be the turning point of the war. It needed a series of defeats to turn the war against German. If you had read my other posts you would understand this. The point I was making about the Battle of Berlin was that it is the only battle, that on its own cost Germany the war, because it was the last one. Get it now?

Not really. It was the battle of Britain that caused Hitler to try take the Soviets on rather than shoring up all of Europe beforehand. It was the battle of Stalingrad that started the Nazi's retreat on the Eastern front. In both cases there were other powers at play but they were the major factor. They were both very definitive battles that began the change of fortune.

Hell, the battle of Berlin didn't on it's own cost Germany the war, it was the 2 years of being beaten back to Berlin that cost them the war. I'm sure there was potential to assault Berlin at an earlier point, but due to other circumstances it would have just been a slaughter (and massive nazi morale boost).

I mean, I do get the point you're trying to make...but it's a wrong point (imo).

 

[Husky.Gnoll]

Normandy was the turning point I think of WWII

 

[oliveira8]

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.

Only Rommel? What about Manstein who planned the invasion of France, Guderian Who pioneered Bliztkreig and Von Runstadt. Germany had the best military command of all the nations in the war, its jsut that Hitler messed it all up.

Rommel is one of the greatest Generals in history and in the whole 20th century. He is the equivalent of Napoleon.(in some sort of way.).

Yes he lost North Africa but that wasnt entirely his fault. Hitler kept moving Rommels troops around and thinking that the British were completly destroyed. When Monty fought back Rommel didnt had the manpower to stop him.

Yes Rommel was great, but he was eclipsed by Guderian, who was there thoughout the war. He pretty much single handedly created the German army, created Blitzkreig, and led the invasion on France. He took so much land so quickly he was order to stop by OKW as the rest of the army couldnt keep up with him. He carried on regardlesss. You alwasy hear about how Hitler had troops to take Dunkirk, but ordered them to hold back? Well that was Guderian.
Rommel was still a grat general, but he had nothing on Guderian, who had the same problems with Hitler who would ask for his advice then ignore it.
Guderian is not as well known as Rommel either, mainly because Hitler kept dismmising him and changing his positions. Rommel simply used Guderians stragety to great effect, when Gudierian was unleashed the Nazis had the greatest vicotries of the war.

Isnt it the other way around? Rommel eclipsed Gunderian. And after the Bliz of Poland and France(which Rommel lend a hand too his "famous Ghost Division" helped alot.) Gunderian lost any important place he had within Hitler's circle. He warned Hitler that the Panzer divisions would frezee due to snow if they kept pushing into Russia. After STalingrad he was demoted to Panzer supervision(or something dont know the actual cargo he had.) in which is job was to ensure that the new Tank designs would work in any terrain.

Rommel on the other hand after the Blitz on Europe had room to shine on North Africa and he did. If it wasnt for the failure that was the Russian campaign he probably would never lost NA.

But both have one thing "good", both ignored Hitler's orders of the capture of Jewish people and never were charged with the War crimes in the Nuremberg Trials and were considered two soldiers.

 

[xChevelle24]

Where's D-day?

Yeah, I'm going to go with D-day. I'm sure the French appreciate that day.

It wasn't a turning point, more the bit just after the beginning of the end for ze shjermans

D-Day or Op. Overlord was as much a turning point as any of the other battles mentioned here. What I mean is it was a decisive defeat for the Germans. I dont really see how people can say Stalingrad (or wherever) was the turning point. The battle for Stalingrad ended on 2nd of Feb 1943 it was another 2+ years before the war ended. Stalingrad alone was not enough to be turning point, no one battle is. I suppose if I really really had to pick one battle, it would be the Battle of Berlin. That is the only battle that on its own turned the war, while also ending it. See what I'm getting at?

There does seem to be a bit of a fascination with Stalingrad at this moment in time. My problem with seeing that particular battle as "the turning point" is that the reasons why the Germans were defeated are complex and long-term, and though things were undoubtedly worse for the Germans post-Stalingrad, it did not precipitate a great collapse in fortunes. That they were able to launch such vigorous counter-offensives at Kursk and to a lesser extent, the Bulge, suggests to me that Stalingrad, while massively important, did not seal Germany's fate to the extent it has been argued here by some.

Stalingrad was only one of the 3 or so fronts. Even after losing the Battle for Stalingrad, the German army was still strong on the African and British fronts. It took major losses on ALL of those fronts to provide a successful turning point.

 

[HerrBobo]

D-Day or Op. Overlord was as much a turning point as any of the other battles mentioned here. What I mean is it was a decisive defeat for the Germans. I dont really see how people can say Stalingrad (or wherever) was the turning point. The battle for Stalingrad ended on 2nd of Feb 1943 it was another 2+ years before the war ended. Stalingrad alone was not enough to be turning point, no one battle is. I suppose if I really really had to pick one battle, it would be the Battle of Berlin. That is the only battle that on its own turned the war, while also ending it. See what I'm getting at?

You don't really get what a 'turning point' is. It's where a side goes from winning to losing. Battle of Berlin didn't turn a damn thing round, the Nazi's went from 'losing' to 'losing'.

A six year war, Nazi's mostly winning for 4 years, then 2 years of them being pushed back against with their borders constantly shrinking. How the hell can you not call that the 'turning point'?

You have missed my point. I was stating that no battle on its own was enough to win the war. No battle on its own was enough to be the turning point of the war. It needed a series of defeats to turn the war against German. If you had read my other posts you would understand this. The point I was making about the Battle of Berlin was that it is the only battle, that on its own cost Germany the war, because it was the last one. Get it now?

Not really. It was the battle of Britain that caused Hitler to try take the Soviets on rather than shoring up all of Europe beforehand. It was the battle of Stalingrad that started the Nazi's retreat on the Eastern front. In both cases there were other powers at play but they were the major factor. They were both very definitive battles that began the change of fortune.

Aye. Thats what I have being saying. Stalingrad/Battle of Britian/Kursk/El Alamein/Moscow/D-Day. None of these battles of their own was thee turning point of the war. It was the combination of these battles that did it.

The point about Berlin is that it the only battle that one could even begin to call thee decisive battle of the war. Why? Because it was the last one, the Germans had no fight left. Why? Because of the battles mentioned above. I'll put it this way. It would be foolish to say that Germany could have won the war outright after Stalingrad. Not just becasue of that defeat but becasue of that combined with the defeat at El Alamein and the USA entry into the war. However, if the German army had been used right (ie Hitler letting the generals get on with it) it is possible that the allies could have been fought to a stand still. However with the Battle of Berlin this was not the case. In part because of everything that had happened before it and also the Germans had no where else to go. The Battle of Berlin saw the death of Hitler and many of his cheifs of staff, it saw the fall of the captial of Germany, it saw the fall of the Nazis and it saw the surrender of the German armed forces. It is for that reason that Berlin, above all other battles in Europe is the most decisive.