Turning Points

Um - wasn't it more a case of Goering being a posturing fool (My Luftwaffe can defeat them) which caused the German army units around Dunkirk to stop advancing and hold the perimeter (enough were there to finish off the French & BEF units present). The drive south into France was undertaken by the reainder of the Heer anyways.

Well, there is the distinct probability that Stalin would attack first instead...

But Russia made up the loss of production within the year - so hardly shattering. I agree that Moscow itself was not a war-winning prize (although as the Soviet rail hub it would have made life bloody difficult for them if the Germans captured it). But had Stalin & the Politburo been in Moscow when the Germans got it...

Otherwise - some darn good points!

 

The interesting thing is that the British were not destroyed, and that hundreds of thousands of trained British regulars were allowed to get away because Hitler wanted his air forces to do the job for him. This was a big, big mistake in the end.

Look at the political picture of the day. Germany is undefeated; it has conquered most of Europe and only one enemy stands against them. This enemy, Britain, is completely alone, left all its equipment on the beaches at Dunkirk and its coastal defences are literally non-existant. Home defence and territorial divisions were not exactly crack troops. At that point the Germans just had to try; it was the best time ever, such a favourable position would never return. If the Luftwaffe had been able to destroy the RAF, Britain would have been all but defenceless against the Germans, regardless of the fact that the Germans would have been unable to exploit this because they lacked an amphibious fleet. Britain might have been forced to make a separate peace right then.

And the fact that Stalin was preparing a similar push simultaneously, which meant that this specific war was more or less inevitable.

Cutting off Russia industry from its remaining sources of oil and grain while opening up those same sources for yourself is a perfectly decent strategic reason to go for the Volga river and the Caucasus.

Hitler declared war on the US on December 11th 1941.

 

my turning points of the war
1.Battle for Stalingrad
2.Battle for Kursk
3.battle of Britain
4.normandy landings
5.operation market garden
6.El Amein
7.battle of the bulge

there might be more in there too but thats all i know

 

Hi StukaAttack, welcome to the forum.

I think what we're looking for here is really a single battle that marked the turning point of the war, so maybe you could elaborate on which battle you think was most important or most decisive?

 

HI stuka attack !

to all , 41... 41....41....

as to stalin attacking first , that was the official excuse of Mr hitler to go in
same as napoleon , stalin might have though about it but there is no
indications or preparations to indicate it was the case in41 or for 42 for that matter ,much bettre to watch from the sideline england and germany
rip into each other , stalin was obsessed with an british provocation to get him at war with hitler and went to extreme lenght not to be the one who started it , why should it ..the situation was fine and his army was reorganising

 

alright, there is a theatre being COMPLETELY FORGOTTEN OVER HERE!

These are the most decisive battles, in order of importance:

Moscow
Leningrad
Stalingrad
Midway
Guadalcanal
D-Day
Ardennes Offensive
Kursk
Burma-China-India
BERLIN
Battle of Britain

Moscow - stopped the Germans for the first time.
Leningrad - Germans did not take the city.
Stalingrad - stopped the Germans for the second time.
Midway - halted all Japanese aggressive expansion
Guadalcanal - first American victory on any front, Pacific or Europe.
D-Day - landed Allied troops in Europe
Ardennes - nearly split the allied coalition apart
Kursk - set the 'Russian Steamroller' into permanent overdrive.
Burma-China-India - chewed up two armies the Japanese could've used to invade Australia.
Berlin - brought about hitler's death
Battle of Britain - blunted the Luftwaffe and allowed RAF to commence flattening Germany.

If you have any objections, please tell me. the wise man is the one who is willing to listen and learn.

Sorry, i'm sleepy and have no idea what i'm typing.

 

Not really, and what it did was unintentional. The only rift between the Allies emerged because of Monty's mismanagement of the American armies he was given control of; what the Germans had intended was to force the British and Canadians to sign a separate peace with them. That's quite a difference.

 

hehe.

 

the relationship between monty and the U.S. commanders was a legend !
for patton to hate monty guts was to be expected , he was the finest attacking general on the western front ( one possible britsh exception) and a pain in the arse, but bradley was a saint , and for him to be frothing at
the mouth in normandy when he was under monty command said a lot ,
eiseinhower endured the man for the sake of politics until in september
44 he had to pull rank and told him ,politely , than if he did not back off
the allied coalition would regretfuly do without him , as a sop , he was
given support to show he could move boldly ,the market garden operation
was the price paid in blood to the stuffed ego of an ordinary general ,
until this operation monty was justly famous and respected for it's desire
to avoid unnescessary casualties ,
as for a rift between the governments though there was some subjects
of discords such as the futures of the colonies , the sometime desperate
attempts to save a fews dynasties or the brits willingness to cut zones of
influence , it was generaly peachy .

 

In my opinion the first step toward the end of nazi Germany would be the battle of Dunkirk. If germany sent in infantry & armour along with air power it would have finished the briton & french armies, therefore probably making a negotiated surrender for the allies & possibly not given the chance for the u.s. & britton alliance for the european landings and eventual dominance of the western european continent over nazi germany in less than a year. But then you still have the eastern front. if there was no threat of allied landings on the european continent because of allied surrender then possibly germany could have used more forces & more equipt. & been better prepared for the winter fighting or better yet better timing where they had a summer offensive ?

 

Personally I'd place Leningrad lower, Berlin last and the Battle of Britain higher.

Berlin last because you can't really consider it a turning point, it was just the conclusion of the war in Europe.

I'd place the Battle of Britain higher because it convinced a sceptical international community, especially the US that a beligerent Britain was worth backing and wasn't finished. Without that victory Britain may well have sued for peace and a war with a neutral or hostile UK would be much more difficult for the US and SU.

Militarily the BoB arguably wasn't that important, politically I think it was vital to the survival of Churchill's Britain.

As for Dunkirk, yes, that was important too, it is more difficult to tell what the capture and ransom of the BEF would have meant for Britain, but a negotiated settlement would have been more likely than once the BEF escaped across the channel.

 

Huuumm , you make a good case for upgrading the BoB ,

I still believe than there was no chance of a decision being reached by
planes alone and the RAF always had the option to take a step back
but truly . it was a great morale fill-up after all the disasters and
Churchill , ever the thespian , rose to the dignity of the occasion
ensuring the continuance of the fight , hence the victory .

Downgrading leningrad from second place seems reasonnable ,
it was the sister battle of moscow , with its particular horrors

kurtsk should go up , it was the crushing of german superiority on an
even field

Midway looks good , after that , the japannese goose was cooked ,
the carving would be hard an slow but hardly in doubt

The ardennes offensive was doomed from the start , the allied got a bad
sweat ,and the U.S. infantry a nasty surprise , but Patton had no
problems handling the crisis and probably loved every second of it

 

Don't over estimate the political will of the people to resist. After Norway and the defeat in France Britain was on the ropes and knew it. People look back now with a rosy glow to the attitude of defiance of the time, but according to my grand-father who was a soldier and narrowly missed being sent to france to join the BEF, things were far bleaker than usually acknowledged now. Historically we bounced back, but it might not have been so.

Norway was a debacle, France sued for peace, most of the BEF had escaped true, but their equipment had not, as my Grandfather told me once, it wasn't just the Home Guard who were doing drill with wooden rifles and pitch forks, the regularly army were too.

Churchill's popularity only really rose during and after the BoB, and with it the defiant mood of the country. Without that victory Churchill could have been removed by a vote of no-confidence, and the public perception could have been of a British military unable to resist the Germans and a German armed force that was utterly unstoppable.

Into the breach steps the great and noble Lord Halifax, removes the stubborn old fool and does the sensible thing bringing an end to this pointless war, after all all Herr Hitler wants is a free hand in Europe, right? Not so unreasonable after all is it?

Welcome to "Vichy-Britain" and the rest is (Alternative) History.

 

The Ardennes crisis was not handled by Patton. I agree that it was doomed from the start because the Germans were quite simply incapable of carrying through an offensive of that scale that late in the war; they could not have achieved their objectives even if the Allies had done nothing but run before them. However, they did not run before the German onslaught; they fought for every little village and road junction and it was this that stopped the Ardennes Offensive, not Patton.

Because of Patton's achievements being vastly overblown, many people tend to forget that the spearhead of the Ardennes Offensive was not aimed at Bastogne, in fact had absolutely nothing to do with Bastogne - that city was to be taken to secure a flank, and after December 24th merely to facilitate withdrawal. The spearhead of the offensive was aimed at Huy, far in the north; that's where the Germans had their best units, the greater part of their divisions, the greatest amount of support, and it was stopped by the men of 1st Army.

 

i'll take the cop for patton , even though he must have been happy as a
pig in it .
As for the point about the morale thing in early spring of 40 , it's an
interesting view , probably compounded with the searing memories of
WW1 ,
mr hitler who had a pretty good political nose, always thought than
a negociated peace was doable and would have loved to get it .

Alternative history indeed .....

P.S. as for the critical battles , the burma campaign hardly mattered for
the defense of Australia
the diggers , after singapore , having been told by churchill not to look for
britain for their defence , and with the help of the U.S.Airforce
had stopped the japs in new guinea on the kokoda track and milne bay.
on the trail , the aussies developed the concept of the crawling wounded
both side did not take prisonners .

after that , and guadalcanal of course the logistics prevented the imperial
army from moving large number of troops in amphibious operations

 

im surprised no one has mentioned hitlers decision not to strike at moscow..after the fall of smolensk at the end of july 41..instead turning the bulk of army group centres panzers south to encircle kiev and subjegate the ukraine.

with the defeat of the russians at smolensk the road to moscow was open only 250 miles away..it is a possiblity that had the germans struck at moscow as the generals had wanted russia could have been eliminated that autumn.

 

Hello cheeky_monkey

"im surprised no one has mentioned hitlers decision not to strike at moscow..after the fall of smolensk at the end of july 41..instead turning the bulk of army group centres panzers south to encircle kiev and subjegate the ukraine. "

go back a few post and behold there it is ..... taddaaaa!!

as for us arm chair "strateigos" with 110% hindsight is ...we know but
they didn't , from the germans point of view ...
the totality of the soviet forces had beeen destroyed during
the july / august battles . what was left was only mopping up , some
organised resistance was located in ukraine , so was plenty of goodies
the pripet marshes turned out to be neither impenetrable nor marshes in
summer .
the decision to mop up the southern front would tidy up the flank of the
army group center wich needed to reorganise anyway as it was badly
fought out and strung over 500 miles of bad road and wrong railways
gages
using this nescessary halt to do some freelancing toward the south
seems like a good idea at the time ....
the eternal excuse of all the stuff up

keep in mind than the germans were sure than russia was finished for
good, nobody could recover from such a serie of disaster :roll:
all through the land the peasant s were coming out with the bread and salt
welcoming the christians soldiers with the nice black crosses painted
on all their vehicles
obviously send by god to deliver them from the bolcheviks

taking moscow could wait two to three weeks extra ,
the blizzards only start in january , usualy :kill:

 

hmmm..i dont see anyotha post that mention smolensk or kiev 41..but ill take your for it!

hindsight is indeed wonderful..however it is my view that only hitler favoured the occupation of ukriane and the destruction of the southern wing of the red army b4 the assault on moscow.

even the red army were all to aware after their defeat at smolensk that their armed forces were very thin on the ground on the approaches to moscow...a full scale drive in the middle of aug 41 would have come a full 6 weeks b4 that of operation typhoon.

 

Post Munich (1938) - when Chamberlain etc all finally recognized Hitlers insatiable appetite for "living space".
From that point on the Nazi's were ultimately doomed.