"Turning Points of WWII" Topic

Turning Points of WWII

When did the tide begin to turn in favor of the Allies?

There can be more than one.

I am just throwing this list out for discussion.

1. Operation Dynamo, Dunkirk
2. Battle of Britain
3. El Alamein, Montgomery's Victory
4. Stalingrad
5. Coral Sea
6. Midway
7. Guadalcanal
8. Kursk
9. Overlord, Normandy
8. Battle for the Atlantic
9. Battle of the Philippine Sea
10. Pearl Harbor

Anymore?

So I will get the ball rolling. There are three on my list.

El Alamein
Midway
Stalingrad

Unquestionably, cracking the Enigma code was a tremendous effect on all operations both strategic and tactical. It insured victory in the naval war, and made the Allied Generals much smarter than they would otherwise have been.

After that, 4.,6, first 9, and the second 8. You need an enigma machine Rallynow! ;-)

I think it's better to do a list of turning points than trying to nail it down to just one.

Dunkirk
Moscow 1941
US war entry

if I had to pick 3 and make everybody happy.

Only need one – Stalingrad. After that is was game over for Germany and the war.

Repiquenoe:

I thought about adding Ultra. The enigma machine was not a turning point. The cracking of the enigma codes is what you mean. I am saving Ultra for a more appropriate list.

I considered Moscow but not really a battle except for the Soviet counter attack. Instead of trying for Moscow again in the spring, Hitler went South for oil and Stalingrad. So we will never know if the Germans could have taken it in better weather. Moscow wasn't a priority. But good catch, may want to include it.

Weasel:

Please see choice #10 Pearl Harbor.

2 Battle of Britain Germany stopped
? Barbarossa Germany overextends
? Germany declares war on US – defeat now virtually certain.

Not all turning point are battles, and realistically the war with Japan was a sideshow – a major sideshow perhaps, but still a sideshow.

Incidentally, I didn't say Pearl Harbour, because what would have happened if Hitler hadn't declared war – would the US have stayed out of that side and just fought Japan?

Invasion of Sicily!

Hitler declared war on the US because of Pearl Harbor. No Pearl Harbor, on declaration of war.

I think it's when Hydra hollowed out the German R&D system for its own purposes, and then got destroyed by Captain America, leaving all its wonder weapons in operational deployment limbo.

When did the tide begin to turn in favor of the Allies?

When America joined the war.

American weapons and food kept Britain in the war until America could build up its strength.

American weapons, food and especially trucks enabled Russia to move the massive supplies and men needed for their counter-offenses.

America was the only thing standing between Japan and the rest of the Far East.

Battle of Britain, which ensures Britain's continuing resistance, and more importantly, battle of Atlantic.
No amount of US aid would help Britain if the aid could not get through. If Germany controls the Atlantic, no troop build up, no second front.

First, Pearl Harbor…it brought the US into the war with a vengence.

Then, in the Pacific? Midway. It was a naval war and, although they still fought, it led to the Japanese loss of naval superiority, giving the allies the initiative. Ultimately, you weren't going to defeat Japan without naval superiority.

In Europe, the Soviet winter counteroffensive in 1941. Although the Germans made some advances in 1942, it was not sustainable. The 41 winter offensive stopped the Germans when the Germans really needed a quick victory over the USSR to win….a long war worked against Germany.

Normandy…probably not as important as the 41 Winter Offensive, but it sealed the deal.

I don't think anything in North Africa was a turning point. North Africa was never anything more than a side show for Germany (the USSR was the priority), and the Italians were not much of a threat to anyone in the grand scheme of things.

Of course none of this means that other battles weren't important or that they didn't have an important role; for example, the Battle of Britain guaranteed Britian would not fall. But if we're talking about "turning points"….

Imphal.

On 3 September 1939, when the allies declared war on Germany. Yes,i know there were long years before the fortunes of Germany failed, but Hitler was not ready for the response of France & Great Britain to declare for Poland, nor was Germany materially ready for a long conflict

When did the tide begin to turn in favor of the Allies?
When America joined the war.

American weapons and food kept Britain in the war until America could build up its strength.

American weapons, food and especially trucks enabled Russia to move the massive supplies and men needed for their counter-offenses.

America was the only thing standing between Japan and the rest of the Far East.

Shhhh! It's not politically correct to say that!

Again I refer you to #10 Pearl Harbor. That is how the US got into the war. Don't they teach this in school anymore.

How about #10 Pearl Harbor (U.S. enters the war)

Khalkhin Gol 1939. Without Soviet victory over the Japanese and a cease fire (later non aggression pact), Stalin would not have been able to shift Siberian reserves west to face the Germans in front of Moscow. Defeat or possible stalemate, or if victory, a much more constrained Soviet advance into western Europe.

Also, Zhukov learned a tactical lesson he would use against the Germans at Stalingrad.

With the loss of face to the imperial army, and the resulting boxing in of Japanese ambitions against the Soviets, the imperial navy steps in with a pacific strategy. No pacific strategy would have meant no push against the US and a much bigger chance of the US sitting out the war or a much more limited role.

Possible result: no superpowers and a much more complex multi power peace settlement and post war political situation.

Can we have one bloody thread without people wailing about political correctness?

I swear, I see more people getting the vapours about the idea that someone might be offended than people actually getting offended.

* * *

On topic, I think it's inevitable that the US would have entered the war even without Pearl Harbour but likely later. Hopefully that wouldn't have been too late.

There's really no chain of events that leads to a German victory of any sort.

Germans not attacking Dunkirk with their Armor right away.

Can we have one bloody thread without people wailing about political correctness?

I believe it was a joke (at least I took it as such).

Barbarosa, Pearl Harbor. At that point the axis was doomed. Neither had the industry or natural resources to win against the enemies they had chosen to fight. Japan could have wiped out the US fleet at Pearl and two years later would be facing 3 times the naval power and wouldn't have finished another carrier herself.

Once the US got in the war it was over.

In "War without garlands" Robert Kershaw describes a discussion between an enthousiastic German lieutenant with his commander who already fought the Russians in 1917. Based on his experiences then he predicts – on the start of Unternehmen Barbarossa, Sunday June 22nd, 1941 – the destruction of Germany. So, like thomalley, I feel those dates (June 22nd and December 7th 1941) were the turning points in the war.

Barbarossa, Pearl Harbour etc may have been points which with hindsight doomed the Axis, but the OP was asking about when the tide finally turned in the Allies favour.

Pearl Harbour and Barbarossa were followed by a series of catastrophic allied defeats, so although the writing may have been on the wall eventually, it wasn't hugely apparent on the ground.

Mid/late 1942 actually turned things around: Midway, El Alamein and Stalingrad.

1941 in the East – when the Germans did not make the big win in Barbarossa, they were in big trouble

Pearl Harbour – the Japanese were never going to win

1. Pearl Harbour brought the US into the war.
2. Stalingrad stopped the Germans.
3. Kursk wrested the initiative away from the Axis and to the Allies.

I believe it was a joke (at least I took it as such).

Yes, it was a joke, or a quip if you will.

Funny that almost nobody has mentioned Kursk yet.

The decision to fight on after the fall of France. The bomber offensive and liberation of Europe become difficult without a launch pad, no Torch as thrte would not have been a foothold in North Africa, and there would be no air cover over the whole of the Atlantic.

Others might argue the war was over on March 10, 1940 -- the day Chuck Norris was born….but seriously, the turning point was the committed entrance into the war by the United States, and more accurately on December 23rd 1941 when FDR decided to focus US efforts around the "Germany First" strategy.

Invading Russia was a poor move.

VJ Day?

These need to be in chronological order

Battle of Britain. = British Survival

Soviet winter offensive 1941 = Russian Survival

Midway = Any japanese chance of victory destroyed and US victory assured.

20 April 1889

Fatman

I reckon it's Dunkirk. Bear with me:

If 'Dynamo' fails… there is no such thing as WWII.

There's the Franco-German war of 1939-40.
Germany wins. France occupied. Britain remains theoretically hostile, but – without an army – toothless and unable to opose Italy in North Africa. Eventually, they'd have no choice but to come to some sort of settlement with the Axis powers.

Then the Russo-German war of 1941-whenever.
Frankly, I think Germany wins. Without the catastrophic misstep of a two-front war, and without Britain keeping Russia supplied overland from the Middle East & by sea via the Arctic convoys?

At the same time, there's the Japanese-American War of 1941-45.
US win any way you want to slice it. Doesn't matter what happens on the ground, it ends with two mushroom clouds.

But the success of Dynamo ensured Britain's continued survival, as a viable combatant, and that 'keeps the pot boiling' and ties those campaigns together.
Without that, the 'Allies' aren't allies at all.
They may well have been nothing more than co-belligerents fighting separate conflicts.

Midway in the Pacific.

Stalingrad in Europe.

While I'm a pretty unrepentant cheerleader for the US doing a lot of the logistics of winning WW2, we still had to win actual battles.

Excellent point Norman.

Starting it. It was NEVER going to be won by the Axis. NONE of the above listed battles was critical to that end. Though if I had to pick one, it would be Stalingrad.

NEVER is a little too emphatic and absolute. Norman D Landings makes some excellent points. The Battle of Britain seems to be over-rated for its importance in general (notwithstanding the propaganda factor), compared to Dunkirk.

It's got to be Midway and Stalingrad.

For Europe, it's tempting to say the Soviet winter counter-offensive on 1941, but I feel like all of 1942 was very much a back-and-forth affair between the Axis forces and the Soviets. Post Stalingrad, you have Manstein's blow and Kursk, neither of which are on the same scale as the movements in 1942 and neither of which had any possibility of turning the tide of the war.

For Pacific, I can't see any other option than Midway. Humorously, the name itself suggest what it is – Mid-way point.

I am not sure the axis could have won based on population, GDP and steel output. Japan is a sideshow.

For anyone with interest into the subject I suggest the book
Why Normandy Was Won: Operation Bagration and the War in the East 1941-1945 by Ken Weiler

the winter war with Finland. Soviet High command realizes its army is weak and starts to make changes.

Battle of Britain- IIRC Germany loses over 2000 planes that could have been used in Russia

Dunkirk – Failure to capitalize

Barbarossa – Failure to fully appreciate the logistics/supply needs. Failure to use ukranian farms

Moscow – failure to capture key city

Lend Lease – Russia badly needed Trucks as well as many other goods.

Pearl Harbor – awaken the sleeping giant

Strategically Pearl Harbor is a good choice.
Along the same vein is Germany and Italy declaring war on the USA allowing the Americans to fight more than just Japan which according to some reports was the initial plans.

Operationally the War for the Atlantic cannot be ignored. It allowed supplies to be sent to Britain and Russia.

Sometimes I wonder if I speak the same language as others on fora. In this case, I read an OP which asked for turning points. I see lots of discussion of strategic developments or major campaigns or contributing factors. Does anyone speak English? Do we know what a "turning point" is?

Merriam Webster: Turning Point – a point at which a significant change occurs

Now, let's look at some of the proposals.

September 3, 1939, when the Allies declared war: See, this is probably better described as a "starting point". This is not when the war changed, because prior to that it was not a war. Note the OP does not ask for the starting points, but the turning points.

Operation Dynamo: yes certainly a turning point. The Germans were winning before, and losing after. Oops, no, not so. The Germans kept on winning for 2 more years. While strategic withdrawals, and in particular withdrawals under fire, are very difficult and can be very important, they usually do not mark turning points. You don't win a war by running away. You live to fight another day. Now maybe on that other day you can do something useful, like creating a turning point. But you are not very likely to achieve that if you think you've turned things just by running away.

Battle of Britain: Well certainly! That's where the Germans suffered their first defeat. Look at how it humbled them -- they only went on to double the land mass and population under their control after that. Hmm, well maybe it doesn't quite qualify.

Pearl Harbor: The Japanese never advanced another step after Pearl Harbor. Or, rather, they continued an unbroken string of victories over the US for 5 more months. Well, not quite the same thing… again looks more like a starting point than a turning point.

Barbarossa: Yes, that certainly marked a change! The Germans invaded a country that was not at war with them. Never done that before, had they? Oh, but in this case they massively out-performed the armies facing them, and were explosively successful in their tactical operations. My word, that was a notable change. Or rather, not.

Moscow: OK here we are getting closer. Mainly because we no longer qualify as a starting point. Was it a turning point? Were the Germans winning before, but not after? If you think so, I suggest you read up on Operation Blau. 'Cause if the Germans were losing after Moscow, no one told the Germans (nor the Russians!).

Really guys, if we are looking for a turning point don't just say "Oh, when they lost the moment they started." First, it avoids the question. I mean, if you don't want to answer the question, don't. But don't answer it by not answering it, please! I get so confused, and worry that you will ask me to vote for you for office! And second, it's simply not right.

The Germans did not lose the war from the start. They were the winningest country in history for 2 1/2 to 3 years. They conquered more landmass, more population base, and more industrial and natural resource base than any other nation has ever done. And Japan in the Pacific, while rightly described as a side-show, was a VERY BIG side show (certainly many times bigger than the North African desert campaign).

Then over the next 2 1/2 to 3 years Germany was the losingest country in history, losing more landmass, population base, industrial and natural resource base than any country in history.

So asking about turning points is an interesting question, and one that can certainly be debated. But not if we say there was no turning in the middle, that it was all pre-determined from the start. It wasn't. It did turn. It was heading in one direction before, and it was heading in another direction after. If there had been no events that caused it to turn, there is no reason to presume it would have turned on it's own.

The trajectory turned in the 7 or 8 months from November of 1942 to July of 1943. Prior to that time, the Germans were winning quite decisively. Not in 100% of their campaigns, but in the vast majority. And the Germans were still setting the pace, determining where and when the decisive battles would be fought.

After July of 1943 the Germans were losing quite decisively. Not in 100% of their engagements, but in pretty much 100% of their campaigns. And they were not setting the pace most of the time. They were reacting, not 100% of the time, but maybe 90% of the time, and most of the decisive battles were fought where someone else decided to fight them.

So if you want to find turning points, I suggest you look into what happened during the time period when the war actually turned. 'Cause that's were you will find them.

Or so I think. Could be wrong. Been known to happen.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

I reckon the British Empire record of conquering landmass, population etc etc was far greater than Germany could have ever dreamed.

But the British Empire took rather longer about it…and lasted longer.

Nazi Germany was probably the biggest 'bubble' empire in history. Small to huge then smaller still in under 10 years.

Cheer up a Native American today by telling them all about how Germany is the world's "losingest" nation!

The day the Chancellorship was offered to Hitler. From that point on Germany was doomed.