THE WORLD WAR TWO GROUP discussion

the turning point of WWII is highly debatable. in my opinoin it is Stalingrad or Normandy. I would like to see if any one else has opinoins on when they think the turning point of the war was.

Tstrubi wrote: "the turning point of WWII is highly debatable. in my opinoin it is Stalingrad or Normandy. I would like to see if any one else has opinoins on when they think the turning point of the war was."

I would say it was the day Hitler declared war on the United States. I don't think his treaty with Japan required him to, but he did. If he had declared war on Japan for their dastardly attack on the white race, it would really have confused the issues.

Barbarossa was Hiter's fatal mistake. Certainly D-Day and Stalingrad were the coup de grace but the ill conceived winter war with the Soviet Union turned the tide of the war.

It's hard to go pass Barbarossa for the death blow.

The failed Unternehmen Wacht am Rhein (The Ardennes Offensive, Battle Of The Bugle) was certainly the nail in the coffin but the turning point was the failed Barbarossa campaign. Germany never recovered from that winter war and with the success of the Normandy invasion Germany was forced into a two front war which it could not win.

Dr. Michael wrote: "The failed Unternehmen Wacht am Rhein (The Ardennes Offensive, Battle Of The Bugle) was certainly the nail in the coffin but the turning point was the failed Barbarossa campaign. Germany never reco..."

My only argument against Barbarossa was what the Germans did the next year. The whole southern Russia campaign ending with the disaster at Stalingrad does not look like someone who the tide has turned against. I would say Stalingrad has a better claim than Barbarossa. Since war is part of the political process, I think the political decisions are probably the key points. FDR extending lend lease to England to even keep them in the war is an example. That is why I chose the decision of Hitler to declare War on the USA. It was a political decision that if he had not done would have forced the USA to concentrate against Japan. Thus keeping the second front from being possible.

The turning point on the ground for the British Empire was undoubtedly Montgomery's victory at El Alamein. This showed that the Germans could be beaten and set the scene for the later invasion of Italy.

In the air it was of course the Battle of Britain where the might of the German airforce was defeated for the first time, causing Hitler to cancel the invasion of Britain. If he had succeeded just stop and think for a minute what may have resulted.

At sea it was the war of the Atlantic where Hitler's U boats were defeated in 42 and 43 by the convoy system.

(Quite a lot went on before you Americans were forced to join the party!)

Rod wrote: "The turning point on the ground for the British Empire was undoubtedly Montgomery's victory at El Alamein. This showed that the Germans could be beaten and set the scene for the later invasion of I..."

very true. the usa was late to the party. Of the three events mentioned, two were after the usa was in the war. Substanial usa material was involved though certainly not fighting men.

WWII was such a huge conflict that there cannot be a single turning point. Even for a given theatre, the conflict was so vast that it's often difficult to define a single critical battle. Probably the most definable one would be Midway, when the tide of the Pacific war turned against the Japanese in the span of a few minutes. I think any list of "turning points" would have to include The Battle of Britain, The German defeat before Moscow, the Battle of the Atlantic, El Alamein, Stalingrad, Midway, Kursk, and Normandy. Hitler's declaration of war on the USA and invasion of the USSR also deserve mention.

Good point Donster. I think most of us here were so focused on the European Theater that we completely overlooked the Pacific Theater. A case could be made that the turning point was the attack on Pearl Harbor.In the words of Yamamoto " I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant."

For an in depth analysis of'Why the Allies Won the War' I would recommend Richard Overy's book of that name. His major reasons are - the Allies victory in the Battle of the Atlantic; Stalingrad & Kursk; The War in the Air over Germany; Normandy; Allied (mainly American) mass production; Allied Leadership & what Overy calls the Moral Contest. All these strands fed (in parallel perhaps) into the victory and it's impossible, I think, to pick a single pivotal event. An event in one strand could perhaps not have happened without progress in the other areas. A very interesting & detailed book; the best work of analysis of the strategic reasons for the Allied victory that I have read.

All the above are good points, and all contributed to Germany's downfall. But I firmly believe if it was not for Hitler's decision to attack Russia that Germans would have held on for a considerable time longer than they did. The shear loss of men and materials expended in the attack on Russia in my view was the death blow to the German's.

That was my original point and while I think strong arguments can be made for all the other events leading to the downfall of Germany my contention is still that it was Operation Barbarossa that sealed the fate of Nazi Germany.

there is no shortage of events to choose from in my opinion. while there's no question that Barbarossa led Nazi Germany down the road to destruction, one could make a case for a much smaller event, Dunkirk, in as much as the failure to crush the British army left the door open to potential counterattacks on the Axis from the Mediterrean to Norway, tying up massive resources for the rest of the war. Similarly, the failure to launch Hercules against Malta kept the Afrika Korps starved for resources and kept Britain in the war in North Africa and leading eventually to El Alamein, Tunisia and the fall of Italy. The Germans lost 250,000 men in Tunisia alone. Otherwise, Germany could possibly have taken the Middle East and its oil resources and turned the Med into an Axis lake. The failure to tie up loose ends in the West is what really made Barbarossa such a blunder.

Or, you could make a case that the real downfall of Germany was in allying itself so closely with Italy, which led to the war in North Africa and the Balkans, and Sicily, etc. The Balkan campaign itself postponed Barbarossa for a critical 6 weeks, making it that much more difficult to take Moscow.

The Greeks still like to take a lot of credit for bringing down Nazi Germany, by the way, not entirely without cause. And the day Metaxis told Mussolini no, you can't bring your troops into Greece is still a national holiday, known as Ohee Day, or No! Day, but I digress.

You could also argue that Hitler's declaration of war against the US without demanding a real quid pro quo from the Japanese against the Russians was a horrendous blunder in as much as it allowed the Russians to withdraw their forces in Siberia and stop Barbarossa in its tracks in the first winter, and led quickly enough to Operation Torch, Tunisia and the rest.

My vote for turning point is Guadalcanal and of course the Normandy invasion.

Marcus wrote: "My vote for turning point is Guadalcanal and of course the Normandy invasion."

If we're going for tipping points - when things started to go the Allies way - then my vote would go to Stalingrad in the East & El Alamein in the West.

Steven wrote: "Many of the comments above are good points but they would have never happened had Hitler captured the 338,000 allied troops at Dunkirk. Britain would have sued for peace, the French still would hav..."
British Army

In 1939 Britain had a small professional army. This was backed up by a poorly trained and ill-equipped Territorial Army. On the outbreak of the Second World War, the British prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, agreed to send a British Expeditionary Army to France. Under the command of General John Gort, the force included four regular infantry divisions and 50 light tanks.

The British government introduced conscription and by May 1940, British Army strength was brought up to 50 divisions. Of these, 13 divisions were in France fighting against the German Western Offensive. After the evacuations from Dunkirk were complete, the British Army had 1,650,000 men.


http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/...

Of the 338K evacuated 100K were French and were returned to to France and became prisoners a couple of weeks later. The 228K British troops were only 1/7 of the British army. While there was a great deal of equipment abandoned and taken over by the Germans for their own use, it could be replaced by British industry reasonably soon. I think the British had already decided to continue to fight even when they thought they couldn't recover more than 45K troops from the beaches. It was important for British propaganda but I don't consider it a turning point of the war.

I believe the turning point to be Hitler's declaration of war on the United States and Japan's failure fight against the Russians. Without America's fight, Germany could have concentrated greater amounts of power for a longer amount of time towards Barbarossa. They would have gone further and possibly have linked up with Japanese across Russia. Not mention the massive oil reserves he was after would have provided enormous resources for Hitler's forces. Hitler had to divert large amounts of men and material to Africa and Italy. Hitler expressed fantasies of taking Mongolia and China at the initial success of Barbarossa. The link up with German and Japanese forces would certainly have been devastating for any reconquering by the Allies. However, I do invite comments to back up or refute my belief. This is a tough topic to discuss given the breadth of the war.

I agree. Roosevelt more than likely would have declared war on Germany regardless. He probably wouldn't have given so much material under the Lend/Lease Program if he wasn't looking to make good on the investment. Although I have heard that Hitler was expressing fantasies of conquering China and Mongolia at the beginning when Barbarossa was walking through Russia. I wish I could remember where I heard or read that, but I will research to find out, but regardless. It was well known that Hitler probably would not have stopped had Stalin proposed peace. Question is, would Hitler have conscripted the "subhuman" Russians to continue his conquest where he wished? And captured T-34 tanks turned to Hitler's use would have been devastating to any opposition in his way. Although I'm not sure the Russians would bow down to the Fascist invader so easily, but is an interesting thought to think about.

Steven and Sdoconnor, you both appear to be unaware that Japan did in fact attack the Soviet Union, and suffered a massive defeat at Khalkin Gol in the summer of 1939. This campaign isn't much known in the west, but it was Zhukov's first great victory, it cleared the way for the Soviet Union's invasion of Poland, and it taught the Japanese very clearly that while their armed forces were more than a match for the Chinese, they stood little chance against Soviet armour and tactics.
Patrick is correct in his analysis of Dunkirk. It was more of a propaganda victory for the Allies than a war-winning turning point. The assumption that Britain would have sued for peace had more (or even all) troops been captured is baseless. Likewise the assumption that the Axis powers could have defeated the Soviet Union. How, exactly? By taking Moscow? It's commonly assumed that had Moscow fallen in 1941 the Germans would have won, but I doubt that's true. Napoleon took Moscow, and still lost.
I think it's likely that Britain and almost certain that Russia would have continued to fight Germany indefinitely, even after outright military defeat. Note that this actually happened in occupied areas of the Soviet Union, where locals waged a vicious unending partisan war against the invaders. Nazi ideology was so inherently hostile to conquered populations, especially Slavic peoples, that they faced a stark choice of continued struggle or eventual extinction. Britons also considered WWII a war of national survival. I don't think they would have surrendered as quickly as you assume.

Well, while I doubt the Brits under Churchill would have surrendered outright had they lost their expeditionary forces at Dunkirk, they certainly would have lost much of their ability to resist a German invasion. Would Churchill have actually remained PM after such a disaster? maybe. In any case, Germany's decision not to remove Great Britain as a threat prior to invading the Soviet Union was clearly a horrendous decision in retrospect, and of course, Hitler himself had roundly criticized the German government for fighting a two front war in WWI in Mein Kampf, so it should have been recognized as a colossal blunder at the time and serves well enough as a turning point.

Japan wouldn't have had to actually invade Siberia to have significantly helped Hitler out in Barbarossa. The threat of invasion would have pinned down substantial forces long enough to have allowed the Germans to take Moscow and avoided much of the disastrous first winter. and that might very well have persuaded the Soviet Union to seek a settlement rather than risk its own two front war.

Steven wrote: "No I am very aware of Japan's attacks on Russia in Mongolia. Because the discussion question is 'what was the turning point of the war?' you'd be hard pressed to include battles that took place pri..."

Does anyone have a breakdown of the returned Dunkirk troops on how many were fighting men and how many were support troops?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

Another aspect of a Japanese entry into the war against Russia would have been a major crippling of the ability to supply Lend Lease to the USSR. Shutting off the Vladistock route would have forced more through Persia or into the artic.

I also am aware of that engagement between the Japanese and USSR. But that was before Barbarossa as Steven's point expressed. At the beginning of Barbarossa, the USSR could barely handle the Germans marching to Moscow. This sudden surprise attack from Germany and then another from Japan, I think, would have been too much for Russia to handle. Even if the Russians could handle the Japanese, what about the Germans? The transfer of Divisions from Siberia helped significantly to push back the Germans. If those were tied up against the Japanese, how long would the Russians out west against the Germans hold out? And what if the Germans did take Stalingrad, what sort of damage would that have done to the morale on both sides. There is a lot to take into account in a discussion such as this.

To expand on Steven's point, if the British had lost their men and material at Dunkirk, and Britain proposed some sort of peace, Hitler ultimately still would have conquered Britain. That also would lead to the question, where would the American foothold have been. The invasion of Europe at Normandy and beyond was based from England. This would have made it enormously difficult for the US to take back Europe. Even if we had continued with North Africa and continued to Italy, the natural choke point of that peninsula would have made it arduous and costly to mount the entire invasion from the South. Had things been more in favor of the Germans at Dunkirk and in Russia, I do not think a recapturing of Europe would be possible.

Patrick that is a great point. The Japanese disrupting 1/2(if an accurate figure) of the Lend/Lease Aid would surely have done irreparable damage for the USSR.

Steven wrote: "No I am very aware of Japan's attacks on Russia in Mongolia. Because the discussion question is 'what was the turning point of the war?' you'd be hard pressed to include battles that took place pri..."

I didn't claim that Khalkin Gol was a turning point of WWII. I disagreed with your assertion that Japan's failure to attack the Soviet Union was a turning point, because the Japanese did in fact mount such an attack.
Claiming that Khalkin Gol somehow doesn't count because it took place before some arbitrary date (either the German invasion of Poland or Barbarossa) is a very weak argument indeed. When did WWII start? With the invasion of Poland? Many historians date WWII from the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931. Others use the start of the second Sino-Japanese war in 1937. Many Americans seem to think it started on Dec. 7, 1941.
It doesn't matter. The point is, the Japanese did attack the Soviet Union and were soundly beaten. The obvious superiority of Soviet ground forces was clear enough even to the rascist and overconfident Japanese to convince them not to repeat their mistake.

Well, it's clear enough that's how Japan saw the relationship. it seems Hitler had more emotional ties to the Axis alliance and it seems to have been his only real reason for declaring war on the US after the attack on Pearl Harbor. At the very least Hitler should have required some sort of quid pro quo for Germany's declaration of war.

I believe the turning point in the Pacific is easy; The Battle of Midway.

In Europe, there were several battles and decisions that ultimately turned the tide of the war in the Allies favor. If there is one that stands above the others in my opinion it would be The Battle of Britain. Hitler, just 30 miles from Britain, blinked. Aware of the enormous costs in materials and manpower it would take to invade England he allowed Goring to convince him that the Luftwaffe alone could bring England to the peace table. By defeating Germany in the air during the summer of 1940 England forced Germany to shelve Operation Sea Lion, the invasion of England, thus buying Great Britain the time it needed to resupply itself with help from the United States in preparation for a longer war. For Germany, the defeat was disastrous in that Hitler then turned his attention to Russia, opening a second front that would ultimately lead to fighting on 4 fronts, Eastern, Western, Mediterranean and the air above the home country.

hard to disagree with Midway, and yet, I'd say the failure to catch the carriers in port at Pearl and/or to launch a second attack against the support facilities, like the fuel depots pretty much doomed the Japanese efforts in the Pacific from the beginning.

Steven wrote: "No I am very aware of Japan's attacks on Russia in Mongolia. Because the discussion question is 'what was the turning point of the war?' you'd be hard pressed to include battles that took place pri..."

Patricrk wrote: "Steven wrote: "No I am very aware of Japan's attacks on Russia in Mongolia. Because the discussion question is 'what was the turning point of the war?' you'd be hard pressed to include battles that..."

The decision as to whether Britain would fight on or treat for peace with Germany was fought out and decided shortly before the troops were evacuated from Dunkirk. Between 26th and 28th May there were an unprecedented nine meetings of the War Cabinet. At the time there were five members: Churchill, Halifax, Attlee, Greenwood and Chamberlain. Halifax would probably have been for appeasement, and if Chamberlain had followed him then there could have been a dangerous split. Churchill co-opted a further member from the Liberals, as the matter was of vital importance, but also because Sinclair had been his second in command in France. Chamberlain, the 'Key Figure', had been treated with honour and respect by Churchill since he ousted him as PM and he responded with loyalty. Churchill had to achieve this agreement without the assistance of the better news from Dunkirk. (source 'Churchill' by Roy Jenkins 2001).

To my opinion the moment Germany (unsuccesful) and the US started to build the atomic bomb is the turning point of WW II. I know it is not a military turning point but seen in the ligth of a weaponsrace an important one.

There was no single turning point; there were a number of turning points. The German detour into the Balkans to clean up the mess created by the Italians postponed the invasion of the Soviet Union. Was it a turning point? In some sense. The Invasion of the Soviet Union was insane -- history should have warned the Germans away from it, just as history should have warned the USA away from Afghanistan -- but was it the first or worst insane thing Hitler did?

The more I read, the more I think the USA played a relatively unimportant role militarily. It's real importance lay in its financing of the British defences and the Soviet preparations for war, and its furnishing of materiel. In fact, Normandy was more significant to the post-war period than to the winning of the war. Without the western allies' rush to meet the Soviets in Germany, its likely that Stalin's hunger would have consumed an even large hunk of Europe. What Normandy and the Italian Campaign did was tie up large numbers of German soldiers during a time of retreat. But had those soldiers been available to be deployed in the east, they would only have slowed the Soviet advance, not stopped it. The way the Soviets took Warsaw and not long afterward Poznan (where I now live) shows the way they were prepared to fight. Enormous artillery barrages followed by huge infantry advances. The German military had no chance of stopping it, for by that time they were running low on necessary resources.

Of course one of the main reasons that Germany was running short of resources was the relentless bombing campaign, first by the British and later joined by the Americans. In 1942 the RAF dropped over 45,000 tons and the US8AF 1,500. By 1944 the figures were RAF 525,000 tons and US8AF 389,000 tons.

Wim wrote: "To my opinion the moment Germany (unsuccesful) and the US started to build the atomic bomb is the turning point of WW II. I know it is not a military turning point but seen in the ligth of a weapon..."

I'd have to strongly disagree with that one. The German nuclear weapons program really never got very far at all, despite an early lead in theoretical work. In terms of the outcome of the war, it clearly had no effect on the European war except as a diversion of resources, which in the case of the Germans was not very great. Even if the Germans had figured out how to construct a bomb, they had no access to U238 and couldn't possibly have mounted the industrial effort required to produce a fissionable amount of U235 from U238 under wartime conditions. The British (actually British naval intelligence) were the ones who did the theoretical work on how to produce a nuclear weapon, but quickly realized that Britain lacked the means to produce a bomb once they worked out what was needed. They turned the whole project over to the Americans, scientists and all.
So the German nuclear weapons program was doomed to failure from the start. The successful American nuclear project certainly put an exclaimation mark on the ending of the war with Japan and avoided a bloody invasion of the Japanese home islands, but I think everyone would agree the ultimate outcome of the war was already decided by August 1945 in any case.

Speaking of one nation receiving too much credit for the work of another -- as it seems the USA may do in the case of nuclear weapons -- three Polish mathematicians based in Poznan broke the Enigma code in '38. It was the pre-War 'three tumbler' version, but the war-time 'five tumbler' version arose directly from it. The English at Bletchley Park code breaking centre ignored the Polish work and distrusted the Polish codebreakers -- slowing the British efforts by many months.

Donster wrote: "Wim wrote: "To my opinion the moment Germany (unsuccesful) and the US started to build the atomic bomb is the turning point of WW II. I know it is not a military turning point but seen in the ligth..."

Donster wrote: "Wim wrote: "To my opinion the moment Germany (unsuccesful) and the US started to build the atomic bomb is the turning point of WW II. I know it is not a military turning point but seen in the ligth..."

Please let me rephrase what I mean. The building of nuclear weapons or the intention to do so are turning points. Perhaps not only regarding WW II but in history. Fact is that the Germans had some kind of nuclear program. They also were the ones who started successfully to build delivery systems (V1 and V2). Fact is also that the Americans successfully build the first atomic bomb. And you are right, Donster, seen in the light of the war this is perhaps not a very important turning point.

i agree that to mark one point in this war is difficult. However, in my view these are:
1. Dunkirk
2. Battle of Britain (Failure to launch sea loin)
3. German high command's failure to recognize potential of Suez and her failure to inject more resources in Mediterranean theater at right time(icluding failure to take Malta & Gibralter).
4. Launch of Barbarossa with inadequate resources & intelligence (As the whole German strategy since the time of Fredrick the Great & Schliefen was based on avoidance of two fronts at a time).
5. Japan's failure to convert Pearl Harbour into a knockout blow.
6. Stalingrad, Tunisgrad, Kursk ( all added to man power drain)
7. Normandy
8. German failure to accord priorities to tank and air craft production.
9. and on political levels i think german failure to bring franco in the bag at an early stage and failure to convince japanese to delay their onslaught on USA and to be a helpin hand in USSR was the death nail, which doomed barbarossa from the beginning.

Mansoor wrote: "i agree that to mark one point in this war is difficult. However, in my view these are:
1. Dunkirk
2. Battle of Britain (Failure to launch sea loin)
3. German high command's failure to recognize po..."

Exactly what I mean. Lots of turning points, some more obvious than others. And almost none of these points would have mattered to the German (as distinct from the Axis) cause IF Stalin had not decided to crush Germany, and set about doing it.

Since we are meant (loosely speaking) to be discussing books, in this context I strongly recommend Beevor's Berlin book. It makes the relentlessness of the Soviet counterattack very clear. Stalin was prepared to, and did, throw everything at the Germans, including millions of soldiers who were afraid to come back without success.

There are many turning points in the war, but there are others that had greater impacts than others. This is what is up for debate, which can be said is the most significant? It is a topic worthy of discussion. Entire books have been written on arguing which is the most significant. Point 9 in Mansoor's comment is the failure for the Japanese to lend a helping hand against the USSR. Others would argue that the Japanese involvement in the USSR would have been irrelevant due to the poor performance of the Japanese at Khalkin Gol. These are all points that need to be discussed.

I strongly feel that had the axis(Germany, Japan) coordinated to slay the red bear first it would have served their purpose, in Europe n far east, respectively. In my view the higher direction of war policies in axis camps was governed by people with narrow minds. Thus seeing out of the well wasn't the order o the day. In hindsight, Launch of Barbarossa simultaneously with an attack on USSR from east would ve been too much too handle for soviets. Stalin would ve been denied the luxury of shifting troops. Moreover, the modus opprendi adopted by the Nazi regime caused the erosion of its own dreams of conquest. Had Third Reich launched Wehrmacht under the banner of freedom from soviet suppression, it would ve sounded death knell of Stalin's iron grip.
Its again the story of what might have been? Had the Russians crumbled in 41 or even summer 42! which, in my view, is possible under the above mentioned scenario. Hitler was free to concentrate on Middle East & remains of Europe (with Franco n Turkey in the lap & the British would ve lost their traditional trump card on the continent). And Japan although starting late would ve a secure backyard!

Mansoor wrote: "I strongly feel that had the axis(Germany, Japan) coordinated to slay the red bear first it would have served their purpose, in Europe n far east, respectively. In my view the higher direction of w..."

Does that mean that setting up the Combined Staffs to coordinate allied war strategy was also a turning point?

It's interesting there's not a great deal of agreement on this topic, despite some clearly knowledgeable participants. One obvious reason for this has been discussed- the size and scale of WWII make it difficult to define individual pivotal events beyond a few obvious ones.
But there's another question we should consider: did WWII really have a turning point at all, or just some important battles, some of which were won and others lost? For every Battle of Britain there was a Battle of France, for every Stalingrad there was a Smolensk. A good argument can be made that eventual Allied victory was a near certainty given the balance of involved powers: their industrial development, the size of their economies, and their relative populations.
Listing Pearl Harbour and Barbarossa as turning points inherently supports this view. They were both military defeats, after all. But by bringing the US into the war, Pearl Harbor ensured the eventual downfall of the Axis powers. Many of us think that US involvement in the war was inevitable though, so does it not follow that eventual Allied victory was also inevitable or nearly so? Likewise conflict between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union was probably inevitable given their respective ideologies and Hitler's clearly stated plans for eastward expansion.
Scenarios that envision an Axis victory generally involve an unlikely series of "what ifs" (like the proposed "link up" between Japanese forces in Siberia with German forces on the Eastern Front- an improbable armchair general's fantasy if ever there was one) or unsupported assumptions like the success of Sea Lion following a German victory in the Battle of Britain or Soviet collapse after a defeat at Moscow.
I think WWII was much like the American Civil War in the sense that the outcome was not determined by superior tactical expertise or even by specific battles, but by eventual weight of population and industrial output. Looked at this way, Axis defeat was a near certainty regardless of the outcome of any particular battle.

Well said Donster. The large populations of the Allied countries certainly overwhelmed the Axis. Russia was dumping millions of troops at the Germans and they certainly had enough to do so. But the question remains, had the Germans taken Moscow and the Soviet High Command captured and killed, would those tens of millions of Russians been organized enough to mount anything more than guerilla attacks? How many would surrender after such a blow? The Germans were on the outskirts of Moscow. To us looking back it is certain, but to those at the time, in their present, all this was balanced on the edge of a knife. It very well could have gone the way the Axis wanted, but that would not have been the end of the world. The fight would still have continued on for longer and else where. Which of these victories for the Allies, if they had been victories for the Axis, which would have resulted in catastrophe for the Allies? Surely there were turning points, no war goes without them. I will have to disagree that it was certain, it seems that way to us after the fact. Everyone here discussing it attests to the fact that it was not certain. Discussion is required to get to the bottom the issue.

well, logically, the Axis should have lost the war based on the disparity in population, industrial capacity, raw resourses, etc. Could the Russians have continued to fight on with the loss of Moscow in 41? yes. Would they have done that, without US entry into the war and the diversion of Japanese forces into the Pacific and South-east Asia is a much more debatable question.

The Confederacy should have lost the Civil War on the face of it much sooner than April 65. there was never much of a chance that they would knock out the Union's ability to resist. The main intent was to remain in the field and raise the price of continued war to an unacceptible level for the North and get a political settlement. That, was possible and would have been a victory.

I believe it is John Keegan who argues that WW2 in the Pacific has no turning point; a "turning point" means one side was winning and now the other side is winning. Japan was never winning, merely on the offensive. So Midway and Guadalcanal are not real turning points, merely the beginning of the inevitable.

It's debatable whether El Alamein was a true turning point either: Rommel's supply situation was very precarious and wouldn't the Torch landings have forced Rommel to retreat even if he'd won at El Alamein?

The US entry to the war is probably the real turning point against Hitler. Besides that, I'd say Stalingrad over Kursk. Kursk proved the tide had turned, but it was Stalingrad that turned that tide: losing the battle, losing so many forces, failing to secure the Caucasus oil, Hitler's rash and militarily incompetent decisions (refusing to let Paulus break out).

I somehow thought we were going to talk about books (about WW2) in this forum, but that is not the way it's been going. I think I will sign off and wish you all the best. Once we start chatting about the American Civil War, I am totally out of my depth.

If you would like to discuss books than you will have to go to the discussion topic "So What Are You Reading?" This discussion is about the turning point in the war, not necessarily about books.

The group heading reads as follows:

World War 2 buffs

description: Just what the title says, mac. Probably one of the only wars in history which came as closely to being a war of good versus evil (or was it? discuss!).
------------------------------------------------------
I think most people would interpret that as open for general discussion about all aspects of the war.

I was the one who brought up the American Civil War. (Note I'm not even American.) I cited it as an example of a war that could not possibly be won on the battlefield by one side due to a large discrepancy in population and industrial output. There are others of course.
I think WWII was also such a war, although I recognize that not everyone agrees with that view. George is right that the American Civil War could maybe have been won politically, in much the same way as the Vietnam war was and the current war in Afghanistan may be, but I meant the analogy only in the military and not the political sense. I don't think a political settlement could have been reached between the Germans and the Soviets- their ideologies were too extreme and the nature of the war too vicious. The Brisish also rejected a the possibility of a de facto German victory through a negotiated end to hostilities.

Perhaps we are all looking at this from the wrong point of view. To really appreciate the turning point of the war we might learn from looking at it from the Axis point of view. When did they stare defeat in the face for the first time? And whose point of view are we to take? - Hitler - who was undoubtedly mad in the latter stages, or perhaps the German High Command? They surely knew when the decisive hammer blow was dealt?

Rod wrote: "Perhaps we are all looking at this from the wrong point of view. To really appreciate the turning point of the war we might learn from looking at it from the Axis point of view. When did they stare..."

that is a good way to look for it. In battles I would say Stalingrad and Midway. I think the Axis field commanders were hoping to make it so costly that the allies would go for a political settlement after those points.