Comments on: Turning Point of World War II? http://www.historynet.com/turning-point-of-world-war-ii.htm From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher Sun, 26 May 2013 04:41:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Harry http://www.historynet.com/turning-point-of-world-war-ii.htm#comment-411578 Harry Thu, 30 Dec 2010 17:50:10 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13681200#comment-411578 The real turning point of the war is indeed, when Germans had to stop at Moscow, having failed to knock Russia out in Blitzkrieg. Once that happened then Germans had to face the full weight of a larger country, numerically, territory wise and also with larger industrial output. . As Russia getting, the needed breathing, time, exploited ruthlessly and in 1942 started out-producing Germany in Tanks and Aircrafts. In addition Russian Tanks were superior to German Tanks,, basically Germans were out-gunned until 1943. Afterwards it was only a matter of time before a larger country would overwhelm a smaller country in attrition war. After that only luck, such as some new far-advanced weapons or colossal mistakes by Russian Generals, could have save Germans from eventual defeat. Other point worth noting is that if Hitler had waited until he conquered Britain to attack Russia, he would not have been able to achieve the same spectacular results he achieved in 1941.Because by that time Russia would have become much stronger. Russia was slowly encroaching on Balkans after 1940 and was closer to Romanian oilfields. With German conquest of Britain, Russia would be expecting German attack any time and would not have been caught off guard in surprise attack and would not have lost so much men, territory and material in first year, granted that much of equipment lost were of inferior type, not T-34 or KV type tanks. It was surprise attack that enabled Germans to destroy Russian Airforce in very early stage. Stalin, being highly cautious man, did not expect Hitler, after conquering so much, to gamble for another front while he had not finished Britain. The real turning point of the war is indeed, when Germans had to stop at Moscow, having failed to knock Russia out in Blitzkrieg.

Once that happened then Germans had to face the full weight of a larger country, numerically, territory wise and also with larger industrial output. . As Russia getting, the needed breathing, time, exploited ruthlessly and in 1942 started out-producing Germany in Tanks and Aircrafts. In addition Russian Tanks were superior to German Tanks,, basically Germans were out-gunned until 1943. Afterwards it was only a matter of time before a larger country would overwhelm a smaller country in attrition war.

After that only luck, such as some new far-advanced weapons or colossal mistakes by Russian Generals, could have save Germans from eventual defeat.

Other point worth noting is that if Hitler had waited until he conquered Britain to attack Russia, he would not have been able to achieve the same spectacular results he achieved in 1941.Because by that time Russia would have become much stronger. Russia was slowly encroaching on Balkans after 1940 and was closer to Romanian oilfields. With German conquest of Britain, Russia would be expecting German attack any time and would not have been caught off guard in surprise attack and would not have lost so much men, territory and material in first year, granted that much of equipment lost were of inferior type, not T-34 or KV type tanks. It was surprise attack that enabled Germans to destroy Russian Airforce in very early stage. Stalin, being highly cautious man, did not expect Hitler, after conquering so much, to gamble for another front while he had not finished Britain.

]]> By: David Luck http://www.historynet.com/turning-point-of-world-war-ii.htm#comment-327526 David Luck Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:08:25 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13681200#comment-327526 A very enlightening discussion. However, inasmuch as the Pacfic War - U.S. vs Japan - and the European War - in essence, Germany vs Russia - were two fairly distinct (tho certainly related) wars, I think we can identify two decisive moments and, of these, one perhaps more important than the other. First, Hitler's "No Moscow" decision, reached as early as April '41 (cf. Halder's Diary) probably doomed the Germans on the Eastern Front. By the time he realized the error of his ways, in mid-September, it was too late...not by much, maybe a week or two, but as events proved, too late. Next question would be, is this then the decisive moment of the entire World War? Many historians would say yes, given the vast forces and issues involved in the Eastern Front. But I don't think so. What the Russians and the Germans contested was really "only" hegemony in continental Europe; neither was or would become a global air-sea power. At issue between America and Japan, though, was precisely this question: who was going to succeed a fading Britain as global hegemon by controlling the world's oceans and the adjacent verticle and horizontal airspaces? And I think that issue was substantially resolved at Pearl Harbor, when the Japanese fell into FDR's trap, dragged America into the Pacific War, and did so without administering any substantial strategic damage. Of course, something else besides Roosevelt's provocations made the Japanese attack southward and eastward, rather than westward into Russia in Support of Hitler's war, and that something would be - as per americangoy's post above - the 1937-39 border war between Russian and Japan. A very enlightening discussion. However, inasmuch as the Pacfic War – U.S. vs Japan – and the European War – in essence, Germany vs Russia – were two fairly distinct (tho certainly related) wars, I think we can identify two decisive moments and, of these, one perhaps more important than the other. First, Hitler's "No Moscow" decision, reached as early as April '41 (cf. Halder's Diary) probably doomed the Germans on the Eastern Front. By the time he realized the error of his ways, in mid-September, it was too late…not by much, maybe a week or two, but as events proved, too late. Next question would be, is this then the decisive moment of the entire World War? Many historians would say yes, given the vast forces and issues involved in the Eastern Front. But I don't think so. What the Russians and the Germans contested was really "only" hegemony in continental Europe; neither was or would become a global air-sea power. At issue between America and Japan, though, was precisely this question: who was going to succeed a fading Britain as global hegemon by controlling the world's oceans and the adjacent verticle and horizontal airspaces? And I think that issue was substantially resolved at Pearl Harbor, when the Japanese fell into FDR's trap, dragged America into the Pacific War, and did so without administering any substantial strategic damage. Of course, something else besides Roosevelt's provocations made the Japanese attack southward and eastward, rather than westward into Russia in Support of Hitler's war, and that something would be – as per americangoy's post above – the 1937-39 border war between Russian and Japan.

]]> By: William Green http://www.historynet.com/turning-point-of-world-war-ii.htm#comment-295487 William Green Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:50:40 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13681200#comment-295487 All the previous posts ignore one undeniable fact. As Winston Churchill stated at War's end "If we had lost the Battle of the Atlantic-we'd have lost the War!" CANADA declared War on Sept 10, 1939 and began delivering one million tons of food, clothing, arms, tanks, trucks aircraft & ammunition by ship from Halifax, Nova Scotia to Britain PER WEEK and provided trained pilots and aircraft to take part in the Battle of Britain in 1941. Without Canada and Canadian direct support-Germany would have invaded Britain and the Allied D-Day Invasion would have been in the British Isles rather than on the beaches of Normandy! And where would Gen. Eisenhower have prepared for Invasion? In Bermuda? In Iceland? In new York? Certainly, Pearl Harbour & Midway were significant "turning points" in getting USA involved and underway-particularly in the Pacific-however, early Intervention by Canada and Canadians in re-supplying Britain with weapons, equipment & food after the evacuation at Dunkirk was indeed remarkable. For your teaching notebook: The Battle of the Atlantic was the longest (6 years) Naval Battle in History. 2. At War's end, Canada possessed the third largest Navy and Fourth largest Air Force in the World! Best Regards, Bill Green, CANADA All the previous posts ignore one undeniable fact. As Winston Churchill stated at War's end "If we had lost the Battle of the Atlantic-we'd have lost the War!"
CANADA declared War on Sept 10, 1939 and began delivering one million tons of food, clothing, arms, tanks, trucks aircraft & ammunition by ship from Halifax, Nova Scotia to Britain PER WEEK and provided trained pilots and aircraft to take part in the Battle of Britain in 1941. Without Canada and Canadian direct support-Germany would have invaded Britain and the Allied D-Day Invasion would have been in the British Isles rather than on the beaches of Normandy!
And where would Gen. Eisenhower have prepared for Invasion? In Bermuda? In Iceland? In new York?
Certainly, Pearl Harbour & Midway were significant "turning points" in getting USA involved and underway-particularly in the Pacific-however, early Intervention by Canada and Canadians in re-supplying Britain with weapons, equipment & food after the evacuation at Dunkirk was indeed remarkable.
For your teaching notebook: The Battle of the Atlantic was the longest (6 years) Naval Battle in History. 2. At War's end, Canada possessed the third largest Navy and Fourth largest Air Force in the World!
Best Regards,
Bill Green,
CANADA

]]> By: William Green http://www.historynet.com/turning-point-of-world-war-ii.htm#comment-295486 William Green Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:48:59 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13681200#comment-295486 All the previous posts ignore one undeniable fact. As Winston Churchill stated at War's end "If we had lost the Battle of the Atlantic-we'd have lost the War!" CANADA declared War on Sept 10, 1939 and began delivering one million tons of food, clothing, arms, tanks, trucks aircraft & ammunition by ship from Halifax, Nova Scotia to Britain and provided trained pilots and aircraft to take part in the Battle of Britain in 1941. Without Canada and Canadian direct support-Germany would have invaded Britain and the Allied D-Day Invasion would have been in the British Isles rather than on the beaches of Normandy! And where would Gen. Eisenhower have prepared for Invasion? In Bermuda? In Iceland? In new York? Certainly, Pearl Harbour & Midway were significant "turning points" in getting USA involved and underway-particularly in the Pacific-however, early Intervention by Canada and Canadians in re-supplying Britain with weapons, equipment & food after the evacuation at Dunkirk was indeed remarkable. For your teaching notebook: The Battle of the Atlantic was the longest (6 years) Naval Battle in History. 2. At War's end, Canada possessed the third largest Navy and Fourth largest Air Force in the World! Best Regards, Bill Green, CANADA All the previous posts ignore one undeniable fact. As Winston Churchill stated at War's end "If we had lost the Battle of the Atlantic-we'd have lost the War!"
CANADA declared War on Sept 10, 1939 and began delivering one million tons of food, clothing, arms, tanks, trucks aircraft & ammunition by ship from Halifax, Nova Scotia to Britain and provided trained pilots and aircraft to take part in the Battle of Britain in 1941. Without Canada and Canadian direct support-Germany would have invaded Britain and the Allied D-Day Invasion would have been in the British Isles rather than on the beaches of Normandy!
And where would Gen. Eisenhower have prepared for Invasion? In Bermuda? In Iceland? In new York?
Certainly, Pearl Harbour & Midway were significant "turning points" in getting USA involved and underway-particularly in the Pacific-however, early Intervention by Canada and Canadians in re-supplying Britain with weapons, equipment & food after the evacuation at Dunkirk was indeed remarkable.
For your teaching notebook: The Battle of the Atlantic was the longest (6 years) Naval Battle in History. 2. At War's end, Canada possessed the third largest Navy and Fourth largest Air Force in the World!
Best Regards,
Bill Green,
CANADA

]]> By: JOSEPH DONATO http://www.historynet.com/turning-point-of-world-war-ii.htm#comment-172128 JOSEPH DONATO Wed, 06 Jan 2010 19:51:42 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13681200#comment-172128 When one looks for the turning point in the Second World War they must realize that the war was fought over four continents involving numerous battlefronts. One particular event cannot be singled out as being completely desicive in the victory or defeat of the Axis forces. Rateher many problems, miscalculations, and blunders would leasd them on the road to defeat . In the case of the Eastern Front I believe the turning point came with the the launch of Opearation Uranus and the encirclement of the 6th Army. The Wermacht was severly overextended when Hitler launched Operation Blue in June 1942. The hopes of rapid victory had been buried in the snows outside of Moscow the previous winter with the failure of Barbarossa to knock Russia out of the war in one season of campaign. By 1942 the Reich needed the oil of the Caucuses to sustain their growing military endevours and to deal the Soviets a vital blow. The depleted Wermacht was revamped and refitted for the summer campaign. However, Hitler's decision to bleed the 6th army white in Stalingrad was a tremendous mistake. The city should have been surrounded and reduced (similar to Leningrad's status in 1941) The desruction fo the 6th army and the reversal of all german gains during the summer campaign was a catastrophe. The scale began to tip in favor of the Red Army. After Stalingrad, the effects of Lend-Lease and the "Total War" Soviet economy began to give the Soviets the advantage. After the abortive "Zittadele" in July 1943, the intiative was passed unquestionably to the Soviets. After Kursk the Germans could only hope to slow down the Soviet tidal wave. With the defeat on the Eastern Front, Germany could only hope to break up the alliance building against it and hold out. When one looks for the turning point in the Second World War they must realize that the war was fought over four continents involving numerous battlefronts. One particular event cannot be singled out as being completely desicive in the victory or defeat of the Axis forces. Rateher many problems, miscalculations, and blunders would leasd them on the road to defeat . In the case of the Eastern Front I believe the turning point came with the the launch of Opearation Uranus and the encirclement of the 6th Army. The Wermacht was severly overextended when Hitler launched Operation Blue in June 1942. The hopes of rapid victory had been buried in the snows outside of Moscow the previous winter with the failure of Barbarossa to knock Russia out of the war in one season of campaign. By 1942 the Reich needed the oil of the Caucuses to sustain their growing military endevours and to deal the Soviets a vital blow. The depleted Wermacht was revamped and refitted for the summer campaign. However, Hitler's decision to bleed the 6th army white in Stalingrad was a tremendous mistake. The city should have been surrounded and reduced (similar to Leningrad's status in 1941) The desruction fo the 6th army and the reversal of all german gains during the summer campaign was a catastrophe. The scale began to tip in favor of the Red Army. After Stalingrad, the effects of Lend-Lease and the "Total War" Soviet economy began to give the Soviets the advantage. After the abortive "Zittadele" in July 1943, the intiative was passed unquestionably to the Soviets. After Kursk the Germans could only hope to slow down the Soviet tidal wave. With the defeat on the Eastern Front, Germany could only hope to break up the alliance building against it and hold out.

]]> By: Lee http://www.historynet.com/turning-point-of-world-war-ii.htm#comment-149228 Lee Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:37:21 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13681200#comment-149228 24 August 1939 24 August 1939

]]> By: Rob Citino http://www.historynet.com/turning-point-of-world-war-ii.htm#comment-116135 Rob Citino Fri, 11 Sep 2009 23:21:13 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13681200#comment-116135 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. 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: Andrew Morris http://www.historynet.com/turning-point-of-world-war-ii.htm#comment-116081 Andrew Morris Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:38:41 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13681200#comment-116081 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. 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: americangoy http://www.historynet.com/turning-point-of-world-war-ii.htm#comment-109333 americangoy Sun, 30 Aug 2009 20:12:22 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13681200#comment-109333 The turning point of WW2 was the battle of Khalkin Gol. The turning point of WW2 was the battle of Khalkin Gol.

]]> By: Rob Citino http://www.historynet.com/turning-point-of-world-war-ii.htm#comment-103863 Rob Citino Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:53:19 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13681200#comment-103863 Chris-- Well, far be it from me to argue with the state of Massachusetts--case closed!! :) --Rob C Chris–

Well, far be it from me to argue with the state of Massachusetts–case closed!!

:)

–Rob C

]]>