Turning Point of World War II?

[FM Harvey]

Originally Posted by panther3485

While I wouldn't necessarily class the Battle of Britain as a major turning point in its own right at the time, I nevertheless believe that it had deeply profound and far-reaching effects for the whole war in Europe, that may not at first be totally obvious............<
.over the same period, had surprised both sides (the British pleasantly, the Germans unpleasantly) and much of the World. There were serious negative effects for the Luftwaffe. After the substantial casualties sustained during the Battle of France, followed by further serious heavy losses in the Battle of Britain, it was arguably never to really recover and certainly had not done so when Operation Barbarossa was launched the following summer............................................ ................................................
The summer of 1940 was very early in the war. Part of the 'formative' stage of the conflict, you might say. When I think of all the things that did flow from the outcome of the Battle of Britain, and then of all the things that might have flowed from it had the Germans won, I would maintain that it was a very important campaign. Very important indeed.

Indeed.. I believe that one has to consider the effect the English victory at the BOB had on Francisco Franco. When Franco and his pro Axis brother in law Ramon Serrano Suner - who was Minister of Foreign Affairs - met Hitler and Ribbentrop at Hendaye, France in Oct 1940 to discuss Spanish entry into the war Suner was very much in favor of Spain actively joining the Axis cause. But Franco demurred. Some think that Franco's demands (Gibraltar, French N. Africa, thousands of tons of wheat..etc) before he would even consider entry was designed to make the demands so unappealing that Hitler would reject them.

I think that the outcome at BOB proved that Britain would continue and get stronger with time so Franco was not ready to commit his nation -which had just been ravaged by three years of Civil War - to a cause which demonstrated that Germany was not as strong, nor England as weak, as previously thought.

[Panther3485]

Originally Posted by FM Harvey

Indeed.. I believe that one has to consider the effect the English victory at the BOB had on Francisco Franco. When Franco and his pro Axis brother in law Ramon Serrano Suner - who was Minister of Foreign Affairs - met Hitler and Ribbentrop at Hendaye, France in Oct 1940 to discuss Spanish entry into the war Suner was very much in favor of Spain actively joining the Axis cause. But Franco demurred. Some think that Franco's demands (Gibraltar, French N. Africa, thousands of tons of wheat..etc) before he would even consider entry was designed to make the demands so unappealing that Hitler would reject them.

I think that the outcome at BOB proved that Britain would continue and get stronger with time so Franco was not ready to commit his nation -which had just been ravaged by three years of Civil War - to a cause which demonstrated that Germany was not as strong, nor England as weak, as previously thought.

Excellent points, Harvey.

[peter_sym]

Very good point. Mind you Franco was a cunning old sod... far more brains than Mussolini. He managed to stay on Hitlers good side but without committing his forces to unwinnable wars and THEN managed to stay in power until the 1970's. He's the textbook example of how to be a fascist dictator

[Ogukuo72]

I think turning points probably should more accurately be called 'tipping points'.

The idea is that history really could have gone one way or the other, very much depending on the outcome of a certain battle or a campaign.

To my mind, there's really only one battle that qualified as that during WW2 - the Battle of Britain.

With regards to Moscow, I really don't think that was that big a deal. Even should Moscow be lost, the Soviets still had room to retreat. The primary task of fighting before Moscow had been completed - the evacuation of Soviet industry from the Leningrad-Moscow belt. Some have argued that should Moscow be lost, Stalin would have been overthrown and whoever succeeded him would have make peace. This is the Nazi rotten house theory, of course, but considering that Stalin was the ultimate survivor, and that all the instruments of political control and oppression were creatures of his creation and ultimately loyal to him, I very much doubt this.

With regards to Midway, I don't think it can be called a turning point because even if the Americans were to lose that battle, Japan would still be stuck with that insoluable strategic problem - they can never defeat the American industrial might. Come 1943, the Americans would have a brand new fleet that they cannot defeat.

Even the best case scenario, of a negotiated settlement, was never a possibility given the way the Japanese started the war (a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor), and its already well established reputation for brutality in China and Southeast Asia.

No, only the Battle of Britain was a true turning point. If the UK were to fall in the summer of 1940, the Germans would be free to devote all their resources, air, sea and land, to defeating the Soviets.

There would not have been lend-lease by the Americans, without which the Soviets would be starved into defeat eventually.

British resources, like French resources, would now be available to the Germans. Instead of having to seize the Georgian oil fields, the Germans would have available the reserves in Arabia.

The Soviet southern flank would be available for penetration. The Soviet Union would fall.

With no UK, and no USSR, fighting, the US would likely remain isolationist, and leave the rest of the world to the Nazis and Japanese.

[lcm1]

Well spoken Ogukuo, a g0od elaboration on my original remarks!

[88L71]

Originally Posted by Ogukuo72

With regards to Midway, I don't think it can be called a turning point because even if the Americans were to lose that battle, Japan would still be stuck with that insoluable strategic problem - they can never defeat the American industrial might. Come 1943, the Americans would have a brand new fleet that they cannot defeat.

Even the best case scenario, of a negotiated settlement, was never a possibility given the way the Japanese started the war (a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor), and its already well established reputation for brutality in China and Southeast Asia.

By that logic one could argue that there was no on-the-battlefield turning point in Europe either, as Germany would never be able to compete with both Russian and W. Allied industrial production.

But I'd still take Midway as it marked the first decisive, significant reverse for the Japanese, who many people were beginning to think were near-invincible. You could argue for Guadalcanal except that without the loss of the IJN carriers at Midway an offensive move by the Americans would not have been considered feasable....even without the carriers lost at Midway it was a very hard fought campaign in the Solomons.

[MajorSennef]

The historian in me revolts to identifying to a singular cause , to a single turning point. The question however is tempting...
So rather than identifying a turning point I would like to mention a period in time, a trajectory if you like, when IMO the course of WW@ turned: the second part of 1941. From Barbarossa in June 1941 to the entry the USA, when the biggest industrial powers joined the side of the Allies.
After that the fate of the Axis was sealed, however tactically brilliant they continue the war and in spite of all the epic battles mentioned above, it was just proper application of overwhelming power.

[Panther3485]

Originally Posted by MajorSennef

The historian in me revolts to identifying to a singular cause , to a single turning point. The question however is tempting...
So rather than identifying a turning point I would like to mention a period in time, a trajectory if you like, when IMO the course of WW@ turned: the second part of 1941. From Barbarossa in June 1941 to the entry the USA, when the biggest industrial powers joined the side of the Allies.
After that the fate of the Axis was sealed, however tactically brilliant they continue the war and in spite of all the epic battles mentioned above, it was just proper application of overwhelming power.

Very well said. I too have never been really happy with the idea of a single 'turning point', which is why I identify several over the course of the first half or so, of WW2. I think your idea is possibly even better; the identification of a key period, or stage, in the conflict. If we were to pick such a period, I reckon you've just about nailed it down nicely. June to December 1941. The war had indeed taken a very different turn by the end of that period, because the scene was now set for the Axis having to fight three major powers at once; the second two (the Soviet Union and the USA), both very powerful indeed in terms of their combination of population and industrial potential. What the Allies had to do now was plan carefully, remain resolute and endure further hard fighting - which, I would respectfully submit, they essentially did do - and the outcome could not be in question.

Hitler knew this. He desperately hoped to finally bring about a strategic decision against the Soviets in the second campaigning season, 1942, before US military power could be effectively mobilized against him. When these last hopes had been dashed at Stalingrad, it is hard to see how any reasonable thinking person on the Axis side, in possession of the facts, could have seriously believed in the possibility of victory.

[globetrotter]

Europe - May 1943 with the defeat of the U-Boats. Though not generally thought of as a 'tipping point', there wouldn't have been a D-Day landing if the U-Boats had been successful in cutting the supply routes, which they came pretty near to doing.

Pacific - June 1942: Midway

Eastern Front - Stalingrad 42/43

[88L71]

Originally Posted by panther3485

Very well said. I too have never been really happy with the idea of a single 'turning point', which is why I identify several over the course of the first half or so, of WW2. I think your idea is possibly even better; the identification of a key period, or stage, in the conflict. If we were to pick such a period, I reckon you've just about nailed it down nicely. June to December 1941. The war had indeed taken a very different turn by the end of that period, because the scene was now set for the Axis having to fight three major powers at once; the second two (the Soviet Union and the USA), both very powerful indeed in terms of their combination of population and industrial potential. What the Allies had to do now was plan carefully, remain resolute and endure further hard fighting - which, I would respectfully submit, they essentially did do - and the outcome could not be in question.

Hitler knew this. He desperately hoped to finally bring about a strategic decision against the Soviets in the second campaigning season, 1942, before US military power could be effectively mobilized against him. When these last hopes had been dashed at Stalingrad, it is hard to see how any reasonable thinking person on the Axis side, in possession of the facts, could have seriously believed in the possibility of victory.

I know the war was won at this point but I'd say June of 1944 was a very interesting month (if Dec. 41 was it for the first half, perhaps June 44 for the second half?) for similar reasons:

Western Europe - Normandy Invasion
Eastern Europe - Operation Bagration
Pacific - Battle of the Marianas and invasion of Saipan

[grognard]

Originally Posted by Golani

Well, like you did, I'd have to agree with the first part of your post and disagree with the second
(And editing it so it would fit what les brains mentioned)

I think 1943 and 1944 marked a vital turning point in the ETO, in those years the first allied initiatives were taken in Europe.
You can claim that the Axis were on their way for destruction anyway and it might be true, but actions need to be taken in order for it to happen.
Think of it as the push needed for them to go downhill.

I think we could all agree that the allies would have won in north Africa, without operation torch and without a specific battle named "El-Almein", but Germany wouldn't lose without an invasion to west Europe and without a Russian counter-offensive.

Germany still could have lost without an actual invasion of Western Europe--they wouldn't dare transfer too many troops east and be too weak for an invasion. the soviets would have beaten the Germans anyway.
Determining turning-points means looking at the whole picture, not just Western Allies or Germany vs. Russia.

[Panther3485]

Originally Posted by 88L71

I know the war was won at this point but I'd say June of 1944 was a very interesting month (if Dec. 41 was it for the first half, perhaps June 44 for the second half?) for similar reasons:

Western Europe - Normandy Invasion
Eastern Europe - Operation Bagration
Pacific - Battle of the Marianas and invasion of Saipan

Agreed, these were of great significance in the second half of the War.

[grognard]

Originally Posted by stalin

- Stalingrad ...hands down

Moscow, hands down or
Kursk, hands down or maybe what you said

Anyway, it was definitely one of those 3, I personally lean towards Moscow because after that the Germans were too weak to mount a full offense, they had to concentrate on one sector. And there were plenty of Soviet troops, e.g. the ones used in Operation Mars, that were not needed to blunt Stalingrad.