Guten tag fellow students.

I choose the Fall of France as a major turning point in the ETO. Germany had gained what became "Fortress Europe" and it took the Allies four years to dislodge them from Western Europe. Submarine bases on the French Atlantic seaboard enabled the Kriegsmarine to operate on a vastly larger scale, thus prolonging and extending the ultimate climax of the War. Thi dramatic end of "Sitzkrieg" very much changed the complexion of the war thusfar.

Check out "Pariser Einzugmarsch" on YouTube to get a feel of the fall of France. The looks on the few French faces visible is shocking as was this swift victory.

Originally Posted by lljadw

I am starting from another POV :it is not because that AFTER the battle for Moscow,the war in the East was not finished,that it was BECAUSE of the battle for Moscow (in Latin ost hoc is not propter hoc).It never has been proved that the fall of Moscow would cause the collaps of the SU .
The German plan to win the war in 1941 was to be at the A-A line before the winter(Moscow was not mentioned),well,on 1 september (before the battle of Moscow),it was obvious,that there was no chance to reach the A-A line,even if Moscow was captured .
That the SU survived in 1941,was due to the summerbattlesn 1 september,the Red army was stronger than on 22 june,and on 1 december it was stronger than on 1 september (3 million,4 million,4.6 million),even if Moscow had fallen in november,there still would be a Red army of 4.6 million in november and the Germans could never destroy that army:it would be winter,and the Germans were exhausted .

I think I get the point you're making but it's not necessarily at odds with mine. We don't know what would have happened had Moscow been captured. It may or may not have caused a general internal collapse of the Soviet Union. It acted as a major railroad hub and by capturing it the Germans would have seriously, perhaps fatally, disrupted Soviet communications and split the country into two hemispheres. The key is whether the Germans could have held it through the winter. If they could I see a real danger of the Soviet Union collapsing.

It seems that the idea of capturing Moscow was implanted in Hitler's head by some of his senior generals. You're right, it wasn't really seen as a major priority when Barbarossa was drawn up. However, the largest and most pivotal land battle in WW2 was fought for it and the eventual loss of it by the Germans was a real hammer-blow. It represented their best chance for an early victory and with hindsight it can be seen as decisive to the eventual outcome of the war.

The Nazis win the Battle of Moscow: Game over. Soviet Union destroyed, Ukraine becomes part of Germany. The Battle of Moscow was significant to the outcome of the war.
The Germans Win at Stalingrad: Both sides still suffer terrific loses, the war goes on another year. While a major battle, the outcome of Stalingrad does not really decide the outcome of the war.
Kursk: The same as Stalingrad. The Nazis probably don't understand the concept of a Pyrrhic victory. Win or lose, the Nazi's can't sustain the losses. This does not make the battle decisive. The outcome is not important.
Leningrad: Horrible and pointless loss of life.
El Alamein or, I am guessing: Second Alamein. Rommel enters Egypt, captures the Mid East oil Fields, allows the Link-up of the Nazi's into the Caucasus and the oil there. Even if Hitler lost Kursk and Stalingrad, a victory at Al Alamein may lead to Nazi victory.
Midway: The US and IJN both lose their carriers. US still wins the war, it will take a lot longer. Even if Midway is as lopsided a Japanese victory as it was a US victory, Japan was still fighting uphill against American war production.
Normandy: The invasion is repulsed. The US and UK will probably try again, but probably only once.
Stalin may have sued for terms if the western Front were not opened. The Soviets suffered more casualties in the great patriotic war than all the rest of the world combined.
It might be argued in human terms, no one won WWII, but the allied managed to survive.
If the Nazis won at Moscow, the outcome of the war would have been different. That makes it in my definition, the most decisive battle. Second Alamein comes in second.

Originally Posted by hardlec

The Nazis win the Battle of Moscow: Game over. Soviet Union destroyed, Ukraine becomes part of Germany. The Battle of Moscow was significant to the outcome of the war.
The Germans Win at Stalingrad: Both sides still suffer terrific loses, the war goes on another year. While a major battle, the outcome of Stalingrad does not really decide the outcome of the war.
Kursk: The same as Stalingrad. The Nazis probably don't understand the concept of a Pyrrhic victory. Win or lose, the Nazi's can't sustain the losses. This does not make the battle decisive. The outcome is not important.
Leningrad: Horrible and pointless loss of life.
El Alamein or, I am guessing: Second Alamein. Rommel enters Egypt, captures the Mid East oil Fields, allows the Link-up of the Nazi's into the Caucasus and the oil there. Even if Hitler lost Kursk and Stalingrad, a victory at Al Alamein may lead to Nazi victory.
Midway: The US and IJN both lose their carriers. US still wins the war, it will take a lot longer. Even if Midway is as lopsided a Japanese victory as it was a US victory, Japan was still fighting uphill against American war production.
Normandy: The invasion is repulsed. The US and UK will probably try again, but probably only once.
Stalin may have sued for terms if the western Front were not opened. The Soviets suffered more casualties in the great patriotic war than all the rest of the world combined.
It might be argued in human terms, no one won WWII, but the allied managed to survive.
If the Nazis won at Moscow, the outcome of the war would have been different. That makes it in my definition, the most decisive battle. Second Alamein comes in second.

1) about the battle of Moscow :if there was one (in november),it was very bad for the fof the Germans :their plan was to win without a battle for Moscow :the battle for Moscow had to be avoided
2)the Ukraine :totally independent from Moscow:Kiew was captured ,while Moscow wasn't
3)Alamein :unimportant,Rommel could go no farther than the Suez canal,and,besides
1) Britain did not need the ME oil
2) the SU was not that dependant from the Caucasus oil
3)there was no way Germany could use the ME and-of Caucasus oil
4) Overlord :even if it failed,there was still Bagration .

Moscow & Stalingrad even if the Russian had lost these battles it would not have ended the war. Napoleon took Moscow but it did not bring him victory, the thing is that Russia is such a vast country even if the Germans had took vast chunks of it they would not have the man power to hold it all. There are many reports of the Germans driving for weeks and not seeing a living soul and getting quite depressed about it all.

I still stand firmly in my belief that Moscow was the most decisive, at least at the Eastern front, and probably the whole European theater
Most experts agree that Moscow was the turning point. It also decided the outcome of the war. Yes, the Ukraine and the Caucasus were vital to the Soviet economy, but Moscow hold the economical, political, transportational, industrial, morale card. It was the center of Russian political power (obviously), and also was a key producer. Most of Russia's upper economical factors were based in Moscow, so if Moscow was taken, Russia wouldn't had the economy to sustain the war. Even though there were the movable factories, they would have faced huge economical problems.
Moscow was the center of transportation between Western and Eastern Russia. If Moscow was lost, then the Siberian Reserves wouldn't have never come, and the troops Russia needed to push the Axis out wouldn't have been mobilized
Moscow was also the country's key morale point. If Moscow had been lost, not only the obvious factor of losing the capital lose morale, but Moscow was the last hope. Kiev, Leningrad, Ukraine, Caucasus, there had been endless lists of failure and defeat by the Red Army. By holding on to Moscow, they gave hope to the long-suffering Russian people. If not, then Russia's morale point would have been considerable to Germany's morale point during the Battle of Berlin
Henceforth, here are my reasons for my firm belief that the Battle of Moscow was the most decisive battle in WWII

Yet when Napoleon took Moscow it had no affect on the Russians so what would make so different this time

Well, the Moscow in the Napoleonic Age and the Moscow in WWII were different.
Back then, there were almost no Siberian soldiers, and the army was already in retreat and there were no troops in Moscow. In fact, it was deserted. The French or the Russians burned it. Also, Napoleon didn't lay waste thoroughly like Hitler did. He just plowed ahead to Moscow, caring little for vital areas like Eastern Europe (where the Russian agriculture was based on), or the Crimea Peninsula (where Russia's sea trading mostly took place). He headed only straight for Moscow, dealing little damage to the vital areas.
Also, the Russians had preparations. They had adequate clothing, while Napoleon (with striking similarity with Hitler) didn't anticipate the dangers of the famous Russian weapon: THE WINTER!!! The Russians were well stocked and already left Moscow.
Also, you have to remember the transportation, morale, and economical factors. The transportation factor didn't matter much during the Napoleonic age as there were virtually no Siberian units to mobilize. Moscow was the last stop. The troops were all mobilized and there were no essential leftovers (in WWII, the survival of the Soviet Union would have been doubtful if there was no arrival of the Siberian and Far East units). Also, transportation didn't get centered on Moscow. There were no trains, cars, etc... Transportation could have been easily altered to a different route. Also, for the economical factor, Moscow wasn't the economical center. Back then, agriculture was the main economy of Russia, and as I stated before, the powerhouse of the Russian agriculture was left relatively untouched. Also, there were no companies, etc... The shops and businesses that was in Moscow had fled, so there was no significant economical damage. Transportation and spreading of the news is slow, so it took weeks for the Russian people to be demoralized. By that time, Napoleon was pushed back.
So, you can see that Moscow during the Napoleonic age and Moscow in WWII was very different. To alter the saying, It's still Kansas, but you're in the wrong time