Turning point of the War.

[321BAR]

it wasnt bodenplatte, i remember a different name... 


 

[Squire]

No it was Bodenplatte. The January 1st 1945 attack by the Luftwaffe on the 2nd and IXth Tactical Air Forces.

If Germany was in retreat at Kursk, then why was it a big German offensive? I suggest you revisit that one.

Normandy was not "just another battle". The Allies had to land on the Continent to defeat Germany, and without victory there, there would have been no western front at all. The Allies were certainly not going to defeat the Third Reich from N. Africa or Italy.

The Ardennes offensive had zero chance of succeeding, it shortened the war by a good 6 months by spending the remaining high quality German armored units in a fruitless attack, opening up Germany to invasion in the spring of 1945. Speaking of which, im not sure how you get a Battle of the Bulge without having secured a landing in France 1st. Kind of hard to do. That being said im not minimising the importance or cost of dealing the final, crippling blow to Germanys forces, which it did.

Normandy was absolutely essential. Calling it just another battle is like calling Ghettysburg just another battle or Waterloo just another battle.

[Die Hard]

Well... Normandy and the creation of a second front (third really if you count Italy) came too late to actually affect the outcome of the war. Germany's war in the East was already lost by then and it was only a matter of time before the Red Army would roll into Berlin. However, the second front did shorten the war considerably and probably saved Europe from communism... Well, some of it anyway.

[Squire]

Well, you can take many key battles or campaigns in history, and then say "well gee, if they didn't win there, XYZ would have happened anyways".

Example. Waterloo 1815. Ok, Napolean wins that one. Do you think he's going to reconquor Europe? highly doubtfull. He would have been brought to heel at a later date, making some other General famous rather than Wellignton and so forth and so on, but he met his end there, not somewhere else.

Germany was being attacked on two fronts, and it was defeated by a combined effort, and one of those fronts was the western front, and that front was made possible by Normandy's success. You could turn the tables and say "well the Soviet Bagration 1944 Offensive didnt matter because the Allies landed at Normandy" I suppose...but then somebody has to matter? don't they? I mean, defeat came, it didn't just appear out of nowhere, if you get my meaning.

[Die Hard]

However, if Normandy was the "turning point" it would have to matter a lot more than it did. Fact is Normandy, though vast in scale by Allied standards would have been considered a minor battle on the Russian front. The entire Western front with all the battles fought there doesn't even count for one of the big battles on the Eastern front in terms of men, machines and casualties. At Stalingrad the Germans lost twice as many men as the U.S. lost in the whole war. The Russians lost three times as much... in one battle. The invasion route from Normandy to the Rhine was shorter than the Eastern front was wide.

Most people haven't the faintest inkling as to the incredible difference in scale between the battles on the Eastern and Western fronts. We watch movies like SPR and TV shows like Band of Brothers and think "WOW!", while the truth is that even if the Germans had thrown Private Ryan and the Brothers back into the English Channel the Russians would still have won. The reverse however is not true; if Russia had been knocked out of the war in June 1944 Germany would have held Europe, perhaps even to this day.

[Ack-Ack]

The reverse however is not true; if Russia had been knocked out of the war in June 1944 Germany would have held Europe, perhaps even to this day.

If the Germans managed to capture Moscow and forced the Soviets to retreat behind the Urals, you think the Soviets would have been knocked out of the war?  I think it would have taken the Soviets a longer time to push the Germans back but I don't think they would have been vanquished.


ack-ack

[Die Hard]

If the Germans managed to capture Moscow and forced the Soviets to retreat behind the Urals, you think the Soviets would have been knocked out of the war? 

Yes. 80% of the Soviet population and infrastructure was on the European continent. Beyond the Urals there was little more than wilderness. Still is. If Moscow had fallen so would the Soviet Union.

This is now:



In 1944 we might have seen a single dotted line beyond the Urals: The Trans-Siberian Railway.

[Ack-Ack]

Yes. 80% of the Soviet population and infrastructure was on the European continent. Beyond the Urals there was little more than wilderness. Still is. If Moscow had fallen so would the Soviet Union.

This is now:

(Image removed from quote.)

In 1944 we might have seen a single dotted line beyond the Urals: The Trans-Siberian Railway.

I thought Stalin had already taken measures to move the major factory productions and seat of government behind the Urals in case Moscow fell?


ack-ack

[Die Hard]

A major factory relocation program was undertaken yes, but the majority of the resources needed to survive as a nation was located west of the Urals. in 1941/42 during the Battle of Moscow Stalin stayed in the capital along with most of the party leadership. He knew that Russia was lost if Moscow fell, and just like Hitler 3 years later he chose to stay rather than flee and be captured later as a rat living of the land somewhere. Ukraine was the breadbasket of the Soviet union, without it the people would starve and succumb to the elements. The oilfields were in the Caucasus, without them Russia would have no way of fighting a mechanized war. That's why holding Stalingrad was so important to the Russians; if the Germans had captured the city they would have cut off the Volga, the industrial "highway" between Russia and her southern provinces.

[Nemisis]

Die hard, then why didn't the Germans go around stalingrad then? getting over the volga up stream of where it branches into different rivers (if it does at all) would have accomplished as much along those lines as capturing stalingrad would have.

[Guppy35]

Seems to me it's fairly simple in regards WW2

Germany's invasion of Russia sealed their fate.  It seems to me they might have maintained a status quo a lot longer otherwise as Stalin didn't seem tohe have any intentions of going after Germany.  He might have screwed up the Russian military even more had he had more time to focus internally instead of having the external threat of Germany.  Outside of Britain fighting on, where was the threat if the US remained out of the war?

Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor sealed their fate.  As mentioned, Yammamoto knew it when he got going.  Too many people in both Germany and Japan seemed to think the US wouldn't fight if they had to.

I suppose you could argue that Pearl Harbor also sealed Germany's fate in that there was just no way to defeat US industry once it cranked up into high gear.  Neither Japan or Germany could touch it.  It was already rolling when Pearl Harbor happened and only got better. Germany declaring war on the US the day after Pearl Harbor just made it that much easier for Roosevelt to focus on defeating Germany.

[SIM]

My opinions of turning points in different conflicts may well agree with some, and disagree with others of this community.

So many times I have read where folks have proudly proclaimed their loyalty to their country. I've spent time reading posts that could only be described as "bashing" one country or another. To that end, I hold onto thoughts of mine own and in this context I do make the following statements:

Those being.......

I am an American. I will fight my countries battles in hopes that my countrymen are not required to make their contribution to the continuation of this great country. For those who hate us, beware. Attack us and we offer you only destruction.

I do loudly claim to enjoy and participate in the freedoms offered by this great nation, and guaranteed by its constitution. Disparaging remarks made against this nation are oft times viewed in a light that does not speak of the freedoms that we hold so dear, but the right to make those remarks is something that so many of us have served to protect, and I dare say, that so many of us would again serve to sustain.

While past battles have many views to be seen, future battles will be fought in views yet to be considered.

With that in mind, I would offer that anyone who believes that an invasion of the United States during World War II could have been successful in any degree truly needs to gain a better understanding of this country and its people.

Just as our forefathers did during the American Revolution, we would and will fight to drive any sort of invader from our shores. Doubt this comment at your peril, for you truly do not understand the rage of an American at war.

[Ack-Ack]

Just as our forefathers did during the American Revolution, we would and will fight to drive any sort of invader from our shores. Doubt this comment at your peril, for you truly do not understand the rage of an American at war.

And that is exactly what doomed the Japanese.  They really didn't have an understanding of the American psyche and fully believed we would not go to war if attacked.  A lot see us as a 'paper tiger' and make the fatal mistake by pulling our tail and finding out that we do have some very sharp and nasty claws and fangs.


ack-ack

[Angus]

Pretty much agree with DieHard here, - had Moscow fallen, I think Russia would have fallen.
Anyway, Squire mentioned Torch/El-Alamein, in the sense of not being that important.
It was a big operation, a big front, it was successful and gave the Axis a very hard time at the precise time of their battle for Stalingrad,  and the results were that the Axis were kicked out of Africa completely, opening a new front on Sicily and then Italy, - at the same time as Kursk.
The sweep up in Tunisia alone led to more than 300.000 axis POW's, and the transport branch of the LW, so sorely needed in Stalingrad suffered a crippling blow in their desperate attempts evacuating troops.
Not a small bisquit, by no means.

[Die Hard]

Die hard, then why didn't the Germans go around stalingrad then? getting over the volga up stream of where it branches into different rivers (if it does at all) would have accomplished as much along those lines as capturing stalingrad would have.

The Germans would have had to fight the Red Army no matter where it tried to cross the Volga. However, Stalingrad was a major industrial center producing, among other things, T-34's. Stalingrad was also in the path of the German goal of capturing the Caspian oil fields. And the city was named Stalingrad.