Turning point of the War.

[Sabre]

Turning point WWII Pacific Theater: Pearl Harbor
Turning point WWII European Theater: Hitler declares war on US after Japan attacks Pearl Harbor

Pretty straight forward.

[Anaxogoras]

Your claim is almost too silly to deal with.

That's called "appeal to ridicule," and is a type of informal fallacy.

-Without the Brits and the French in 1939, the USSR would have had an invasion much earlier.
-With the Brits making peace with Hitler in June 1940, the USSR would have fallen.
-Without the Brits, the USA would never even have entered the European campaign.
-Without the Americans, most of Europe would probably have fallen to the USSR.

All of those were about decisions that were made, so, - sort of- , turnpoints in the war.

Do you notice that some of your speculations entail a contradiction?  Let's assume that the UK making peace is equivalent to "without the UK"...

No Uk -> USSR Falls

No UK -> USA does not enter ETO
USA does not enter ETO -> Europe falls to USSR -> -(USSR falls)

-------------

By transitivity we get...

No Uk -> -(USSR falls)

and the original premise

No Uk -> USSR falls

entail both the USSR falling and the USSR not falling.

[alskahawk]

Your claim is almost too silly to deal with. A point in time would be good, but this is really for another thread.
I'll give you my view though.

-Without the Brits and the French in 1939, the USSR would have had an invasion much earlier.   Possible, not probable, there would have been significant problems to overcome to invade in 1940. Germany actually sustained relatively heavy losses in the Polish Campaign. The estimated casualties were around 50,000. And the Luftwaffe actually lost a large portion of their strength. (A third?) in Poland and had to rearm. Many of the German divisions were still regiments or were non existent in 1939.    

-With the Brits making peace with Hitler in June 1940, the USSR would have fallen.   Doubtful. If Britain was out of the conflict, resources would have been freed up for Barbarossa. Particularly from the Italians. Germany doesn't send help to the Italians in North Africa and the invasions starts two months earlier. The Germans could have taking Moscow and the oil rich southern region. Winter still would have stopped a unprepared German army. Taking Moscow would have been a symbolic or political victory nothing else.  Many in the Wehrmacht hierarchy had no concept of the size of Russia. They didn't even have accurate maps of the invasion front. Russia knew they were going to have to fight Germany, Stalin just didn't believe it would happen in 1941. As it was the Wehrmacht lost nearly a million men out of their five million man war machine by the end of 1941.

-Without the Brits, the USA would never even have entered the European campaign.   Possibly. Especially if Pearl Harbor didn't happen. The US anti war sentiment was strong until Dec 7 1941.
 
-Without the Americans, most of Europe would probably have fallen to the USSR.     Possible. But doubtful. Fighting a war on two fronts didn't succeed in WW1 for the Germans after the US stepped in. So with no US involvement a longer war would have resulted. Germany wouldn't have automatically won. They still lacked significant resources to win outright. But to expect them to quit wouldn't have happened. They would have had no expectation of mercy from the Russians. How long would it take Russia to finish Germany and then start on the rest of Europe? One year? Five years? Russia goes into France then Britain is back in play and then the USA.

All of those were about decisions that were made, so, - sort of- , turnpoints in the war.

[Unit791]

Unit 731, most disgusting thing ever.  What I want to know is the the |-| E |_ |_ the Japanese came up with these things so horrid???

[Ack-Ack]

Unit 731, most disgusting thing ever.  What I want to know is the the |-| E |_ |_ the Japanese came up with these things so horrid???

What is really disgusting about it is the commander and others in leadership positions were not tried as war criminals after the war.  The lead doctor of the unit was in fact employed by the United States to help with research into chemical and biological warfare.


ack-ack

[Curlew]

Stalingrad all day long

[Nemisis]

Japan in that example was only perceived as weaker, but in fact in 1905 the Japanese were far superior than the Russians (as the results prove). A "weaker" opponent can still land punches and win battles ie. Isandlwana...The Little Big Horn etc but almost in every case, eventually the side with superior forces, logistics and or the capacity to wage war will prevail...exceptions could be The American War of Independence, Afghanistan or the Vietnam conflict

 Tronsky 

Technicly we dropped out of that one before they lost. When we left, we were winning from a millitary stand point.

[Angus]

That's called "appeal to ridicule," and is a type of informal fallacy.

Do you notice that some of your speculations entail a contradiction?  Let's assume that the UK making peace is equivalent to "without the UK"...

No Uk -> USSR Falls

No UK -> USA does not enter ETO
USA does not enter ETO -> Europe falls to USSR -> -(USSR falls)

-------------

Different possibilities, not an equation.
With UK in and USA out, USSR probably had held.

By transitivity we get...

No Uk -> -(USSR falls)

and the original premise

No Uk -> USSR falls

entail both the USSR falling and the USSR not falling.

Different possibilities, not an equation.
With UK in and USA out, USSR probably had held. And of course, the USA would never have entered the ETO had the UK stepped down. For the free countries of the West to be on the side of the Iron curtain where they ended up, you needed both the US and the UK.

[cpxxx]

I would venture to suggest that the main turning point of the whole war was when Winston Churchill became British Prime Minister. He was determined to continue to fight. If another less hawkish leader came into power. Britain might well have made peace with Hitler. Hitler had no real interest in invading Britain or even continuing the war against them. The Battle of Britain flowed from that. Hitler lost that battle and with any chance of peace with Britain.

Britain out the war meant no Italian attack in the desert so no intervention from Germany. In all probability France as a whole might have become vichy and fascist because there would be no need to base troops and aircraft there against the British. More resources could have been sent to Russia therefore but that doesn't mean Barbarossa would have succeeded. As alaskhawk pointed out the Germans took heavy casualties in 1941. Unless Soviets completely collapsed they really couldn't win. Thus the Soviets would have taken most of Europe eventually.

What is interesting after that is to speculate what would have happened when Japan attacked the USA and it must be pointed out, British colonies. Britain would be allied with America against the Japanese but not against Germany who would presumably have still declared war against America. This could have brought the British back into play in Europe.

[Ardy123]

I would venture to say prior to the US joining the war in WWII, the outcome had two possibilities, all of Europe would be under German control or all of Europe would be under Russian control. Remember, prior to the invasion of Poland, Hitler and Stalin had a treaty where they carved up eastern Europe and basically said this is yours, and this is mine. Do you really think Stalin was going to hold up his end of the deal? It was a waiting game, who was going to break the treaty first,  and so Germany did the attack first. And as history has shown us, after WWII, Ironically, Most of eastern Europe was under Russian control until the '90s.

That being said, I would say the turning points were...
1) German/Russian front = Stalingrad
2) USA/British/Canadian = North Africa or Italy
3) USA/Japan = Midway

[Nemisis]

There were two turning points, the U.S. entry into the war, and Op Barbarossa. England alone couldn't have defeated Germany, but the U.S. and england  could have. Germany couldn't defeat russia unless, as cpxxx stated, completly collapsed. Germany lost because Hitler was too ambitious, and Japan was in idiot.

[killjoy1]

American Revolution

Kings Mountain -

 Theodore Roosevelt wrote of Kings Mountain, "This brilliant victory marked the turning point of the American Revolution." Thomas Jefferson called it, "The turn of the tide of success." Herbert Hoover's address at Kings Mountain included, "This is a place of inspiring memories. Here less than a thousand men, inspired by the urge of freedom, defeated a superior force intrenched in this strategic position. This small band of patriots turned back a dangerous invasion well designed to separate and dismember the united Colonies. It was a little army and a little battle, but it was of mighty portent. History has done scant justice to its significance, which rightly should place it beside Lexington, Bunker Hill, Trenton and Yorktown."  

Numerous "Overmountain Men" marched over mountains in North Carolina and what is now Tennessee to the Kings Mountain site - named after King's Settlement and the King family (King's Creek). Many of those at the battle were American settlers of largely Scotch-Irish descent who had settled west of, or "over," the Appalachians, and were thus known as the "Overmountain Men."

These Patriots (Whigs) were entirely volunteer forces who fought under men that they chose to follow: William Campbell, John Sevier, Frederick Hambright (Hambrecht), Joseph McDowell, Benjamin Cleveland, James Williams, Zachariah Isbill, John McKissack, Isaac Shelby and James Johnston (Colonel) who was in command of the rear guard, led their militia units as Colonels, while Captain Joseph Winston and Edward Lacey commanded the other mostly autonomous units. Captain Espey and Captain John Mattocks were both killed during the battle while leading their units. Major William Chronicle was also killed leading his men during hand to hand combat. Colonel Frederick Hambright (actual name was Hambrecht) took over and his unit, the South Fork Boys took the most extreme punishment and casualties of any unit assembled. Colonel Hambright was shot atop his horse, but refused to get down despite being clearly visible riding around, while his boot filled with his blood. Three holes were found in his hat and he later refused medical treatment until all others had been attended to.

Atop King's Mountain, the British commander would later invoke God's name and state, "not even God himself can take me off of this mountain."

These patriots simply chopped up the Redcoats and Loyalists so badly, it put the fear of God into every English commander.  

Runner up is Cowpens - This battle broke the back of General Cornwallis and Tarleton.  It lead directly to Yorktown.  

[Unit791]

Technicly we dropped out of that one before they lost. When we left, we were winning from a millitary stand point.

No, we were on the side that lost, therefore we lost.  The Netherlands was on the winning side of WW2, even though they "dropped out" (See Fall Gelb) early on, they still were on the side that won, therefore they won.  AND, yes, Japan very well could have won the war in the Pacific.  Their navy was widely superior to the U.S. until as late as 1943, had Japan succeeded at the Battle of the Philippine Sea, we would not have  won the battle of the Phillipines.  Japan would still have large sources of crude oil.  It would be a major setback that, if followed up by recaptures of other pacific islands, could have systematically drove the U.S. out of the pacific.  The U.S., contradictory to the common consensus, is not invincible.

[Nemisis]

They couldn't win. Yes they could have driven us outa hawaii if we'd screwed up bad, but no way in hell they woulda landed 3 divisions south of LA. They didn't have the manpower or resources to fight a war with us. Our industrial capacity was far greater than theirs, and there for, they were at a sever disadvantage unless they were able to make us believe we were defeated. Moral is to physical as 3 is to 1.

[-tronski-]

They couldn't win. Yes they could have driven us outa hawaii if we'd screwed up bad, but no way in hell they woulda landed 3 divisions south of LA. They didn't have the manpower or resources to fight a war with us. Our industrial capacity was far greater than theirs, and there for, they were at a sever disadvantage unless they were able to make us believe we were defeated. Moral is to physical as 3 is to 1.

I think its entirely feasible for the Japanese to have landed 3 divisions on the west coast of the USA. In 1941 they certainly had the manpower, and the navy for such an operation considering even with the simultaneous operations in the Philippines and Malaya after pearl harbour, the Japanese still had large numbers of troops in Korea, and China.
The american military in 1941 was not the mirror image of the forces arrayed in 1944, the japanese army certainly had the edge in morale and training, and their Navy/Airforce was still very much intact although the Japanese Army were poorly armed and lacked for adequate artillery, armoured vehicles.

The question would've been if they would've been able to have to get such a large force close enough to the continental US undetected in Dec 1941, and what would've become of them once landed. Certainly the Japanese had awful logistics and would struggle to support a landing force - but I would think initially it would've been quite an effort for the available forces in 1941 to quickly defeat that force considering the quality and numbers available to the defenders.