"D-Day Did Not Turn the Tide in WWII. That Happened" Topic

… in 1941.

"The D-Day Allied invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944 signaled the beginning of the final push to liberate Europe from Nazi rule. It is more than fitting that the 75th anniversary ceremonies will be marked by pomp and circumstance—especially given what is probably the last opportunity to honor the dwindling number of surviving veterans of the landings on the beaches that day.

But contrary to popular belief, D-Day, while immensely significant, was not the critical turning point of World War II. The key developments that set the stage for Germany's ultimate defeat had already taken place much earlier. Hitler's litany of disastrous mistakes in 1941 made it possible for the Allies to survive his country's initial military successes, regroup, and launch an audacious operation like D-Day three years later…"
Mainpage
link

Amicalement
Armand

You can debate the True Turning Point of WWII. IMO the massive losses suffered by the Axis in the second half (mol) of 1942 sealed their fate. Midway. Guadalcanal. Stalingrad. Alamein.

But Normandy WAS a turning point of sorts. Albeit often misstated as THE Turning Point it did in fact mark The Beginning of The End. To conclude the war against Germany without allowing the Russians to occupy ALL of Europe the Allies were going to have to invade Europe and enter Germany with ground forces. Normandy was curtains up on the Last Act.

Cheers!

I don't think anybody with any knowledge of WW2 would characterise D-Day as a turning point. The tide had thoroughly turned long before then.

1941 needs hindsight but is perhaps the case. Failing to defeat the USSR in 1941 made any positive outcome for Nazi Germany most unlikely. Add in Hitler's declaration of war in the US after Pearl Harbour and it's vanishingly small.

All the Allies have to do is not mess up or give up.

By 1944 Russia could clearly have defeated Germany on land by herself. The second front made it quicker, but it wasn't what made it possible.

Midway – Pacific and Stalingrad – Europe was the turning points. Before those two campaigns the axis could have won, after those two the axis could not win.

Yes, many believe as I do that the USSR really defeated the Axis. Along with the rest of the Allies. After the defeat of Germany in '45.

The USSR rolled up the IJFs in China in about a week or so. Yes, the IJFs at that time were not at their "best". Regardless, they still were no match for a highly mobile combined arms army that the USSR fielded by that time.

By 1944 Russia could clearly have defeated Germany on land by herself. The second front made it quicker, but it wasn't what made it possible.

The Soviet role should not be under emphasized -- they fought doggedly against a brutal and competent enemy and suffered heavy casualties. The Crossing of the Dneiper River was akin to dozens of D-Day landings. But neither should it be over emphasized.

The USSR limped across the finish line when Berlin fell. The D-Day invasion and follow-on Allied campaigns on the Western Front occupied the attention of *70* German divisions. Another *29* divisions were tied down in battle against US/UK/Commonwealth forces in Italy. You don't think that some 100 divisions wouldn't have caused the Soviets some serious issues???

And we haven't even spoken about Lend Lease yet. Without the Lend Lease program and US munitions and supplies the USSR could not have stayed in the fight for the crucial period where losses outstripped manufacturing. Yes, the UK started Lend Lease, but it was a trickle compared to the US. In total, the U.S. deliveries to the USSR through Lend-Lease amounted to $11 USD billion in materials: over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks, about 1,386 of which were M3 Lees and 4,102 M4 Shermans); 11,400 aircraft (4,719 of which were Bell P-39 Airacobras) and 1.75 million tons of food. The US also shipped millions of tons of raw materials and fuel, hundreds of thousands of radios and other equipment.

Roughly 17.5 million tons of military equipment, vehicles, industrial supplies, and food were shipped from the Western Hemisphere to the USSR, 94% coming from the US. For comparison, a total of 22 million tons landed in Europe to supply American forces from January 1942 to May 1945.

It has been estimated that American deliveries to the USSR through the Persian Corridor alone were sufficient, by US Army standards, to maintain sixty combat divisions in the line.

No, by themselves the Soviets would have at a minimum been stalemated, and very likely defeated.

The USSR rolled up the IJFs in China in about a week or so.

A sideshow. The main units of the Japanese army had been withdrawn to the main islands and China written off. The Soviets steamrolled the poorly equipped units in China, but when they pulled an amphibious invasion of *after* Japan had surrendered they had more mixed results. They attacked the Kuriles using the 149 ships given them by the US Lend-Lease program, attacked with overwhelming power and surprise -- and still lost 5 ships and thousands of casualties.

The victory of WW2 was a team effort, despite revisionist history.

Well summarized, SBminisguy. The total defeat of Nazi Germany was a team effort – the UK, the USSR, and the US were all indispensible.

Not sure if there was a turning point in the Pacific. Midway started the Japanese collapse but given the industrial and (with a few exceptions) technical disparity, US defeat of Japan was arguably inevitable. As Luttwak observed, in retrospect the best the Japanese could have hoped for on December 7, 1941 was for the strike force to get lost and not find Pearl Harbor at all. Perhaps if Japan had not struck first but waited until the Americans had initiated hostilities, she might have wrangled a negotiated peace.

Looking back, 1941 would seem correct to me.

Still, to my knowledge, Russia was putting out peace feelers thru 1942 and Stalin consistently called on his allies to invade France.

Outside of Russia how many were really aware of what was going on there? I think with Italy practically stalemated many in the west, at that time, probably saw D-Day as a turning point.

Over and over and over again -- the russians are the savior of all mankind in every category.

I guess it all depends on what we mean when we say "turning point".

If we mean a point where things didn't go as well as one side wanted, then sure events in 1941 can be a turning point. The BoB can be a turning point. Moscow can be a turning point. FDR's birthday can be a turning point.

But if we mean the point at which things turned, at which the war stopped going one direction and started going another, then no, there were no turning points against the Axis in 1941. Things may have become progressively more difficult for the Axis, but the war was still basically a series of Axis offensives, Axis expansions, and Allied reactions through most of 1942.

On the Eastern Front Stalingrad was a major blunting of their offensive efforts, but I would suggest if it was a part of the turning, then it was a long slow turn, not a turning point, because the Germans were still able to mount operation-level offensives, to "move the map" as it were, in the spring of 1943.

Or maybe they weren't, and just didn't know it yet. Seriously, maybe the Russians had reached a turning point. But to my observation the Germans had not yet turned.

However by mid-July of 1943 it was clear -- the Germans stopped being on the offensive, and were no longer capable of operational level initiatives, and that direction remained in place for the rest of the war. Up through October of 1942 the map moved only one direction, in favor of the Germans. After July of 1943 the map no longer moved in that direction -- it had turned and now moved only in the opposite direction, against the Germans. The best they could do was slow it down, usually only slowing one part of the map by accepting faster map loss on other parts.

In North Africa and the Mediterranean the combination of El Alamein and the Torch landings made late 1942 the turning point. From that point on it was no longer a matter of the Axis expanding at the operational level, but only the speed and magnitude of Axis decline. Even the riposte at Kasserine was peanuts compared to the scale of operations throughout the Med, and despite significant German tactical wins they were incapable of retaining any of the map movement they had made.

In any case, I can not see D-Day as a turning point in this sense of the phrase. The Germans were losing territory and on the defensive across the board on June 5, 1944. They were still on the defensive and losing territory across the board on June 7, 1944. So I don't find any evidence that anything turned.

In the Pacific I give clearer credit to Midway. After Midway the US and Commonwealth forces went on the offensive, and didn't stop for the rest of the war. Before Midway the map moved only one way (Japanese expansion), while after Midway, starting with Guadalcanal, the map moved only the other way (Japanese reduction). That, in my mind, makes for a clear turning point, in the meaning of a point where things turn.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

I agree with Lee494, D-Day was the Beginning of the End -- still, it could have gone horribly wrong.

A sideshow.

Yes well aware of all you said and agree. Stalin was going for a land grab towards the end of the war. For a number of reasons. It was no surprise when they attempted an invasion the Kuriles they took heavy losses. As we know that type of operation is one of the most difficult to execute successfully.

But yes it was a combined Allied effort. But Russia did destroy about 70-75% of the Axis Force on the Eastern Front. Primarily Germans, but the the Italian 8th Army was pretty much eliminated as useful force. As well as smaller Axis Allies, e.g. the Romanians, etc.

Part of the US agreement with Stalin was once the Germans were defeated. They'd turn East and go after the IJFs. Which they fought in Russo-Japanese War in 1905-6 and Khaklin-Gol battles in '39 as we know.

If Hitler had not invaded the USSR. The rest of the Allies would of had a harder time defeating the Axis, if at all. Again 70+% of the German forces were deployed in the East. Stalin was pushing for a US/UK/Allied invasion of the Western Europe to take the heat off his forces. But still the bulk of the Germans were deployed in the East.

At the end of WWII, the UK and France had or were loosing much of their overseas colonies, etc. Both nations had suffered a lot damage to their their infrastructure and economies as well. Stalin got a lot of territory and a lot of things his way.

The US was now seen as a Super Power after the the war. And the older European powers lost a lot of their status as well.

I still feel the USSR was one of the Big winners, even if they lost somewhere around 20-27 million lives. They ended up in a better position overall after the war. As did the USA. Where much of old Europe lost their "power", etc., …

The turning point was "December 7, 1941 – a date which will live in infamy – ".
On that date the Japanese "…awakened a sleeping giant and filled it with a terrible resolve."