|
|
Turning Point of World War II?By Robert M. Citino | Front & Center | 19 comments | Print This Post | Email This Post What was the turning point of World War II? I’ve been teaching university courses on the war for a long time, and it’s one of the questions I get asked most often (right up there with "Would you repeat that?" and "Is this going to be on the exam?"). Subscribe Today
I’ll confess from the get-go that the question makes me somewhat uncomfortable. This war, more than any other before it, was a vast and sprawling conflict on land, sea, and air. It involved hundreds of millions of fighters and civilians from the freezing cold Arctic wastes to the sweltering heat of the Burmese jungle, and the notion that there was a single discrete moment that "turned" it is problematical, to say the least. A second problem with the concept is the sheer number of turning points that historians have identified over the years. The German halt at Dunkirk, allowing the British to escape the continent and fight another day; the German decision to shift to city bombing and terror raids in the battle of Britain when they "clearly" had the RAF on the ropes; Hitler’s gratuitous decision to give himself a two-front war by invading the Soviet Union in June 1941; his diversion of the Panzer formations into the Ukraine in August; his equally gratuitous decision to declare war on the United States in December; El Alamein in October 1942; Stalingrad in November: the list goes on and on, and there are more than a few historians who identify more than one. That’s cheating, of course. A second turning point should put you right back where you started! The real problem, however, is that "turning point" simply isn’t a very useful way to think about war. A quarterback throwing an interception–a single bad decision, a faulty throw, a badly run route by a receiver–that’s a turning point. Momentum is a real factor in a sporting event, no doubt. But is it the same in war? Let’s think about El Alamein. It was something different, certainly, a smashing victory for the British 8th Army after years of humiliating defeat in the desert. It crushed Field Marshal Erwin Rommel’s Panzerarmee Afrika, and although the "Desert Fox" managed to retreat to Tunisia, it clearly signaled the onset of the end game in North Africa. No less a figure than Winston Churchill said so: "Before Alamein, we never had a victory – after Alamein we never had a defeat." But Alamein wasn’t some shocking bolt out of the blue. By the time it was fought, the British (backed by American muscle and materiel) had achieved a decisive superiority in manpower, tanks, aircraft, and gun tubes. At Alamein, they used all these things to good effect to wear down (and eventually grind down) an enemy who was already mortally inferior. Therefore, while Alamein might have made Churchill feel better, it can’t be seen as the "turning point" of either the desert war or the war as a whole. The very fact that the British 8th Army could win it in the fashion it did showed that a turning point of some sort–or at least a dramatic shift in the balance of forces in the desert–had ALREADY taken place. "Turning point" confuses cause and effect. Help HistoryNet by bookmarking to
            Tags: 20th - 21st Century, British history, Military History, World War II
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
What is HistoryNet?The HistoryNet.com is brought to you by the Weider History Group, the world's largest publisher of history magazines. HistoryNet.com contains daily features, photo galleries and over 5,000 articles originally published in our various magazines. If you are interested in a specific history subject, try searching our archives, you are bound to find something to pique your interest. |
From Our Magazines
|
Weider History Group |
Weider History Network: HistoryNet | Armchair General | Great History | Achtung Panzer! Terms of Use | Copyright © 2009 Weider History Group. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. |
||
Loading ...
19 Comments to “Turning Point of World War II?”
Well then surely Midway would, by most of the criteria listed, be a turning point. The U.S. fleet, out numbered in ships, stopped the invasion. This despite the inferiority of Allied aircraft in both numbers and quality.
By David on Jul 31, 2009 at 11:17 pm
It is, in my opinion, totally reasonable to have more than one turning point and there is no better example of this than WW2. Turning points tend to be incremental; that is, the direction of events turns by identifiable stages, each pivotal event tending to tilt the balance progressively more in favour of one side. In this way, a second ‘turning point’ does not “put you right back where you started”. Of course, it is possible to suffer reverses along the way and indeed, at times this did happen to the Allies but it’s the overall trend we need to look at, and the pivotal events that helped to keep that trend going. Therefore, when asked, “What was the turning point of WW2″, we should be answering that there were a number of turning points, or pivotal events, that can be identified as being of major importance in shaping the Allied victory.
By Paul on Aug 1, 2009 at 12:14 am
“Turning points” may very well be hard to pin down to single events, that much is true. By the time the battles of Stalingrad, 2nd Alamein and Midway were fought we now know the Germans had already lost the war. Remaining with Alamein for discussion purposes it does qualify as a turning point in at least one way, it finally showed that the British and Commonwealth armies could fight the axis and win the battle.
Too many point to the 8th Army’s numerical advantages and claim the battle would have been won anyway. This is clearly false. The 8th Army had a numerical advantage for Battleaxe, Crusader, Gazala and 1st Alamein in July 1942 but in none of the above cases was it able to truly defeat the Italo-German army in Africa. Battleaxe and Gazala were clear defeats, Crusader can best be described as a tactical success but an operational and strategic failure and 1st Alamein is little more than a draw despite a numerical superiority held by the British that exceeded what was to follow during the October battles.
If numbers did not guarantee success it must be another factor that final led to victory. The missing piece to the puzzle was training and doctrine. Prior to 2nd Alamein the British and CW formation were simply not all reading from the same script. Doctrine was applied haphazardly and training was faulty to say the less. The British tried, under Auchinleck, to fight as the Germans did without understanding the German methods or being trained to use their own version of their doctrine.
The 8th Army did not fight as a whole whether it was at the divisional, corps or army level. Armour did not understand the needs of the infantry and artillery and they, in turn, did not understand the peculiar needs of armoured formations. Even long after the use of “columns” had long been discredited they were still being formed and sent into action (only to be destroyed or badly mauled) as late as July 1942.
The “turning point” for 8th Army and the British in the European theatre was the appointment of commanders that both understood the social make up of the army they led. They took the time to train these men in the methods that they would need to use in battle and applied doctrine uniformly across the army. Second Alamein would likely have ended in a British failure if the British commanders had tried to apply their old methods. As such, it would have never have achieved its status as a “turning point”.
By Gerry Proudfoot on Aug 1, 2009 at 12:32 am
To David: You may be right! Midway may well qualify as a “turning point”… a series of chance occurrences turned the tide there, and in the Pacific War as well. But even here: WHY was Midway so pivotal? We say it all the time: “Japan lost four carriers it could not replace.” But the US built dozens of carriers in the course of the war. The issue that made Midway crucial was lack of Japanese productive capacity. Japan had launched a war where even a single defeat could well represent a mortal blow.
To Paul: Your analysis is spot on. My only disagreement with it is that the traditional view of “turning point” is something that marks a 180 degree turn! I really like your notion of a long series of incremental “pivotal events”. I think it really gets at the problem of modern war’s complexity.
Gerry–Great analysis of the desert war and the role of Alamein in it. No argument: the 8th Army had to learn how to fight. But the Panzerarmee
was vastly whittled down by the Fall of 1942–five straight months of offensive operations, a top-speed lunge into Egypt, non-existent logistics, loss of air superiority. They all need to be factored in as well.
Thanks, everyone, for weighing in. As I like to say, “your mileage may vary” on all these questions! That’s why it’s so interesting to discuss them.
By Robert M. Citino on Aug 1, 2009 at 8:48 am
Hi Robert. Thanks for the comments, and glad to have been able to make a small contribution. I guess the main thrust of my position is that the ‘traditional’ concept of a turning point, being a 180 degree turn, is fundamentally flawed or at least, too simplistic. War generally, and modern war in particular, is IMHO usually too complex for the overall situation to go totally in reverse on account of a single pivotal battle, campaign or event. (Or, to put it another way, ‘full ahead’ and ‘full reverse’ are not the only two directions things can go in.) The direction of a war can be, and IMO frequently is, turned by degrees; often at distinctly identifiable points. Hence, multiple turning points rather than just one. :-)
Gerry: I agree with Robert; very good analysis (as is usual for you).
By Paul on Aug 1, 2009 at 12:59 pm
All the commnets are spot on, no doubt. I agree with the fine statements about turnarounds and how many there could be. The question is: “What was the Turning Point in WWII?” I will have to side with Midway being the turning point. I agree with the definitions of turning points and how many there could be. However, if the brave warriorshad not defeated Yamomoto he wouldn’t have stopped at Midway, he wwould be churning blue water towards Hawaii. This would have caused the U.S. to draw back on support to Europe to defend Hawaii and possibily even the mainland. Europe would have been put on hold and then who knows how the Axis would have responded.
Midway gets my vote.
Gunner
CWO5 USMC (ret)
By Gunner on Aug 1, 2009 at 11:29 pm
I agree that it is nearly impossible to point at a definitive battle that was the turning point of WW2. Although my vote would have to go to Pearl Harbour. Pearl Harbour engaged the US in WW2 which with it’s industrial might made the outcome inevitable.
By Rick Solomon on Aug 4, 2009 at 10:42 pm
I agree with most of the above remarks, there are several actions that were turning points.
Still the question is “Turning point of World War II. In my humble opinon the turning point was Pearl Harbor. The war had been going on for over two years before Pearl Harbor was attacked and the United States of American entered the war. With out Pearl Harbor and American military forces and industry might would any of the other “Turning Points” even happened? With out Pearl Harbor how long would it have been before America entered the war, or would she have entered the war?
By dee t. on Aug 5, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Don’t forget the Anzac were a big part of the “British” fight…
link
By Tioedong on Aug 5, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Rick and dee t.–
Pearl Harbor was huge, no doubt, the moment a war in Asia and a war in Europe became a “world” war. Question: was the Axis defeat “inevitable,” in your opinion, after December 7th, 1941?
Tioedong–
ANZAC forever! Rommel himself listed the New Zealanders as being among his toughest opponents.
By Rob Citino on Aug 5, 2009 at 10:01 pm
I am sorry to disappoint all western thinking on this, even though being part of this myself.
The two leaders in WW2 where Germany and USSR. They engaged their society most thoroughly, rendered the two largest armies the world has ever seen and the turning point must surely be on this front. All the events in Western Europe, Africa and Asia or USA must be considered secondary and of minor importance even though continuously enlarged in media ever since. In comparison, they remain minor and without overall impact.
Even though the industrial output of USA running outside the war zone could have had a large impact, the actual effect is smaller and the potential of it hampered by the US lack of commitment and lack of actual war experience.
There is in my mind no doubt that the Stalingrad surrender at Feb 2nd 1943 following the decision not to pursue Stalin in Moscow, is the turning point of WW2.
The second most important turning point is the bombing of Nagasaki August 9th 1945. This is naturally most important to Japan but the main effect on WW2 is the way it stopped USSR from invading at least the rest of Europe and thereby showing the western World that it had the greater war machine. Since this is hypothetical and does not involve the Third Reich, it is perhaps to be considered in terms of WW3 more than WW2. This is why most of us can continue to form our own image of the history rather openly.
We ought not to create a basis of wishful thinking where minor events involving US/English persons suitable for films, are made into decisive battles.
By LongView on Aug 6, 2009 at 5:59 am
I’d say that Longview is just a little bit right.
The Turning point of the European/N. African leg of WW2 was the German failure to force a decision anywhere by the end of 1941.
No decision in September 1940 in the Battle of Britain. No Decision in North Africa. No decision in the Atlantic and no Decision on the Eastern front.
After the halt at Moscow in Dec 1941 and the entry of the US, there was no real chance of a short war and no real chance of a German victory on sheer economic criterea (Paul Kennedy, Rise and Fall of the Great Powers).
As far as the US contribution is concerned it was American industrial strength and the incredible economic capacity to produce (possibly inferior) military equipment in such quantities that it drowned Axis potential. Remember the ammunition, food and personnel for the Red Army a Stalingrad and Kursk was carried principally on American Lease-Lend trucks!
By Terence on Aug 9, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Of course you can have multiple turning points when war is made of battles, area dominance and supply chain.
Win a battle but dont have area dominance then you are going to have another battle. Conquer the area but lose your supply chain then you havent won much ground for very long.
As long as the enemy isnt vanquished then there can always be turning points.
“A second turning point should put you back right back where you started” What a mind-w*nk of a word twist.
Next time, maybe start the article with a popular definition of turning point or maybe emphasise the real intended meaning of the question by asking what was the “Critical” turning point.
Then you can have a discussion that isnt basically arguing about definitions
By Nathan on Aug 15, 2009 at 4:00 pm
The reality of the moment was that the War was decided on the eastern front. The speculaton of what would have happened if the Germans had not made any number of the errors they did would not have affected the eventual outcome of the war. Atomic weapons and there delivery system {B29’s} were the trump card. The Germans were first on the hit parade.
Pearl Harbor may have accelerated both systems development and intergraton.
By Scot on Aug 16, 2009 at 2:53 am
I too have been teaching WWII at the university level for years. I agree that there is no single turning point but a series of events and historical changes (which can never be inevitable since that is ahistorical and leaves out human agency) that made the allies vastly superior in every way. Ironically, we cannot agree on a turning point, but the state of Massachusetts, in their teacher licensure test, asks aspiring teachers that exact question in a multiple choice question. The choices are a) El Alamein b) D-Day c) Stalingrad d)Pearl Harbor. In their infinite wisdom, the ONLY correct answer is c) Stalingrad. So the state of Massachusetts knows the answer what is wrong with all of you…..
By Chris on Aug 21, 2009 at 8:36 am
Chris–
Well, far be it from me to argue with the state of Massachusetts–case closed!!
:)
–Rob C
By Rob Citino on Aug 21, 2009 at 9:53 am
The turning point of WW2 was the battle of Khalkin Gol.
By americangoy on Aug 30, 2009 at 4:12 pm
In a war which was truly global with multiple theaters of war and multiple combatants, I don’t think you could ever say that there was ONE “turning point” (however you define that).
I think, building off of Paul’s analysis that it’s rather a series of incrementally increasing events that ultimately leads to the end result, and that each occurs in each theater of war that contributes towards the overall end scenario.
So, rather than ask “What was THE turning point of WW2?” the question would be better phrased as “What WERE the turning pointS of WW2?”. That would lend itself to better discussion and debate than a singular definitive answer.
As to Pearl Harbor being THE turning point, based on bringing in the US to WW2: I would say that the US was already heavily involved (Lend-Lease the primary example) and they were already heavily down the road to more significant involvement. The US was going to be involved in the war no matter what; it was just a case of “When?” rather than “If?” and Pearl Harbor made the decision a whole lot easier for the American public and Congress to accept.
By Andrew Morris on Sep 11, 2009 at 3:38 pm
americangoy–
I would add one thing to your excellent post. If things tend to change incrementally, then we need to drop the term “turning point” altogether, because “turning point” will ALWAYS mean the same thing to most people: the ONE event that changed World War II. As my original post argued, I don’t think one event could possibly have changed the course of something as vast as World War II.
By Rob Citino on Sep 11, 2009 at 7:21 pm