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

[pcload1etter]

I'm going with Battle of Britain as the UK held out against massive odds.

Plus I air battles.

 

[ssgt splatter]

I'd say, the end of the war when we dropped the A-Bomb on Japan.

 

[ReZerO]

The allies were already in Itally before D-Day. therefore the whole argument of "gave them a foothold in Europe" dosen't isn't valid.

 

[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.

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.

Decisive != Turning Point

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

The allies were already in Itally before D-Day. therefore the whole argument of "gave them a foothold in Europe" dosen't isn't valid.

Gave them a foothold in france, to free them.

 

[ElephantGuts]

I think the most important turning point wasn't a battle at all, but Operation Barbarossa. As soon as Hitler invaded the Soviet Union he screwed himself over. More than anything else it was the flood of Russians pouring in from the East that brought about the end of the Third Reich. If he had kept his peace treaty with Stalin Hitler might have atleast managed to fight the other Allies to a stalemate/truce.

 

[HerrBobo]

Decisive != Turning Point

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.

As I have said if I had to pick one battle it would be Berlin. However, in general I'm against that idea, as I have said in my above posts. I pick Berlin just to keep with in the parameters of the thread.

 

[gh0ti]

I think the most important turning point wasn't a battle at all, but Operation Barbarossa. As soon as Hitler invaded the Soviet Union he screwed himself over. More than anything else it was the flood of Russians pouring in from the East that brought about the end of the Third Reich. If he had kept his peace treaty with Stalin Hitler might have atleast managed to fight the other Allies to a stalemate/truce.

I don't think so. As we all know, initially the invasion of Russia went very well for the Germans; the Soviet military was in utter disarray and enormous gains were made. It was what went wrong during the invasion rather than the concept itself that undid Hitler.

Further, the idea that breaking a truce with Stalin was inherently foolish is also difficult to support. Both sides had signed that treaty as a means to buy time, and both sides viewed one another as enemies who would one day have to fight over Eastern Europe. From one point of view, it was a good idea for the Germans to strike in 1941 seeing, as mentioned above, the Russians were in no state to resist the Blitzkrieg.

 

[ElephantGuts]

I think the most important turning point wasn't a battle at all, but Operation Barbarossa. As soon as Hitler invaded the Soviet Union he screwed himself over. More than anything else it was the flood of Russians pouring in from the East that brought about the end of the Third Reich. If he had kept his peace treaty with Stalin Hitler might have atleast managed to fight the other Allies to a stalemate/truce.

I don't think so. As we all know, initially the invasion of Russia went very well for the Germans; the Soviet military was in utter disarray and enormous gains were made. It was what went wrong during the invasion rather than the concept itself that undid Hitler.

Further, the idea that breaking a truce with Stalin was inherently foolish is also difficult to support. Both sides had signed that treaty as a means to buy time, and both sides viewed one another as enemies who would one day have to fight over Eastern Europe. From one point of view, it was a good idea for the Germans to strike in 1941 seeing, as mentioned above, the Russians were in no state to resist the Blitzkrieg.

True enough. Okay, so maybe Barbarossa wasn't the turning point. But would you agree that the turning point was when the Germans stopped making gains on the Eastern Front and started getting their asses kicked? I'm not sure exactly what event would symbolize that as I don't think my timeline is completely in order, but I think it would be either when the Soviets stalled the Germans at Stalingrad or more generally the winter of 1941-42 when the Soviets beat the Germans back outside Moscow.

 

[gh0ti]

I think the most important turning point wasn't a battle at all, but Operation Barbarossa. As soon as Hitler invaded the Soviet Union he screwed himself over. More than anything else it was the flood of Russians pouring in from the East that brought about the end of the Third Reich. If he had kept his peace treaty with Stalin Hitler might have atleast managed to fight the other Allies to a stalemate/truce.

I don't think so. As we all know, initially the invasion of Russia went very well for the Germans; the Soviet military was in utter disarray and enormous gains were made. It was what went wrong during the invasion rather than the concept itself that undid Hitler.

Further, the idea that breaking a truce with Stalin was inherently foolish is also difficult to support. Both sides had signed that treaty as a means to buy time, and both sides viewed one another as enemies who would one day have to fight over Eastern Europe. From one point of view, it was a good idea for the Germans to strike in 1941 seeing, as mentioned above, the Russians were in no state to resist the Blitzkrieg.

True enough. Okay, so maybe Barbarossa wasn't the turning point. But would you agree that the turning point was when the Germans stopped making gains on the Eastern Front and started getting their asses kicked? I'm not sure exactly what event would symbolize that as I don't think my timeline is completely in order, but I think it would be either when the Soviets stalled the Germans at Stalingrad or more generally the winter of 1941-42 when the Soviets beat the Germans back outside Moscow.

Well, perhaps the crucial factor ultimately proved to be that Barbarossa was delayed from a Spring start to June. It's possible that an extra month of fighting before Winter set in might have been enough for Russia to capitulate. Crucial also was the decision of the Germans to halt short of Moscow and instead concentrating on subduing the Soviet forces in the Ukraine and southern theatre. Also vital was that the Russians were able to evacuate a large portion of their heavy industry to the east of the Urals.

See, in a war of the nature of WW2, the battles themselves often mask the forces that were truly at work. Sun Tzu would tell you that most battles are decided long before the first blows are struck. But, if you really pushed me, then I would say, as far as the eastern war is concerned, the failure of the Germans to capture Moscow marked a considerable change in fortunes for the then seemingly invincible Wehrmacht.

 

[johnman]

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.

Rommel died long before the Nuremberg Trials , he commited sucide after the assassination atempt on hilter. Guderian lived and was aquited. And dont dismissed Gudrian as unimportant, the posts he held were important, at one point he was resonbile for every panzer that was deployed. the fact that he was fired then reinstated by Hitler so many times speaks of his importance. His teachings from ACHUNG PANZER are still considered important to this day

 

[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.

Rommel died long before the Nuremberg Trials , he commited sucide after the assassination atempt on hilter. Guderian lived and was aquited. And dont dismissed Gudrian as unimportant, the posts he held were important, at one point he was resonbile for every panzer that was deployed. the fact that he was fired then reinstated by Hitler so many times speaks of his importance. His teachings from ACHUNG PANZER are still considered important to this day

Never said he was, only noted that he got demoted into a position were he wasnt needed at the time.

And plenty of Germans officers even dead were decleared war criminals for the holocaust. And plenty of others were dismissed. Even Churchill recognized Rommel's greatness more than once.

Both Rommel and Gunderian(and many other generals) were respected by the Allied forces as people that treated PoW's as human beings and in a civilized way, and the fact they never followed Hitler's extermination of Jews orders. Most of the old school german army(Rommel and Guderian fit in the mold) did the typical military salute instead of Hail Hitler thingie(or the Imperial salute whatever is called.) as they refused to practise such salute as it insulted them in some sort of military status.

But my opinion Rommel was the best the german army had from the begining to the end. Manstein and Guderian were good too.

 

[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...

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

...no if thats what i meant i would have said that. Sticking with what i said and still think your wrong...and a dumbass.

 

[AkJay]

i think the Battle of the Bulge would be it, i don't know if it's on here or not, but for me, that would be the turning point.

 

[Zildjin81]

Stalingrad probably.

 

[Silenttim89]

im leanin towards midway in 1942... the jap carriers were raped and disabled their offense for the remainder of the war

 

[huntedannoyed]

I am going to say that the crap that the US pust Gen. Patton through at the end of the war changed a lot of peoples minds about how they would choose to serve their country. How about a little respect for the people who serve?

P.S. I am not the history buff that I would like to be and all of my info is based off of the movie Patton. It may have not been a "turning point" in that war, but it was a turning point in the way US citizens viewed fighting wars.

 

[RavingLibDem]

I've clicked other because the whole opening of the Russian front was the turning point, as it catastrophically split Hitlers forces

 

[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?

...no if thats what i meant i would have said that. Sticking with what i said and still think your wrong...and a dumbass.

Never trust the opinions of a man who can't capitalize, use apostrophes, and can't spell "you're."