Originally Posted by Doppleganger

I suggest that you read accounts of the Battles of ... and Liegnitz and you'll realise that alternate outcomes of those battles may have lead to a completely different history for Europe and one where Christianity would have had no place at all.

Perfectly sound except that an alternate outcome to Liegnitz would amout to what? The Mongols completely massacred the Teutonic Knights ... so exactly how would a different outcome have endangered Christianity?

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

Perfectly sound except that an alternate outcome to Liegnitz would amout to what? The Mongols completely massacred the Teutonic Knights ... so exactly how would a different outcome have endangered Christianity?

Well 'may' have endangered Christianity. The Liegnitz battle was different from the others I mentioned because the actual outcome did indicate that an alternate history for Europe was on the cards. As you know the Great Khan died and Batu ordered that the Mongols withdraw back to Krakorum as tradition dictated. So Europe got lucky. But you're right though, and alternate history for that one battle likely would have had very little impact on history.

Had Ogedai Khan lived 10-15 more years (he died younger than expected due to his love of overmuch drinking), then we're talking about some seriously earthshattering changes. Now THAT is an alternate timeline that would severiously shake things up. It would have completely rewritten the future map of Europe and they likely would have ended up as part of the domain of the Golden Hoarde.

Turning point in world war two.

In what I studied, I can say the creation of Soviet-British-American alliance right after Axis attack on USSR was an important factor in many positive aspects of world war two.

There was a dangerous precedent to it from the Soviet-French-British talks, on the eve of the Soviet-German, that each side would get paranoid and pull its own way. British and Americans were fast to show support upfront, when asked how they feel by Molotov. They were not conservative in words either, which I feel was important later in the talks, when Stalin would not settle for soft support, allowing lend lease to be as big as it was.

I feel that Lend-Lease was important not only material aspect but also in psychological terms. All three got a strong allies. That late summer there was a British-Soviet occupation of Iran. It ended up being an important route of lend-lease by road and rail.

Furthermore, my feeling that the alliance, the belief that you are on the right side allowed the people in the British Empire as well as the United States, and of the Soviet Union to go through a much more peaceful transition in postwar years then what it could of been if the situation was not as consolidated and internal arguments would prevail in wartime.

Main reason I think it was a success is the set up of UN in 1944 that was acceptable enough to all sides to ensure ww2 ended with allies being allies. The nazi government, from what I read through their own materials, had no precedent in history - not before not after. Their defeat and denazification of Germany, plenty important.

-David Ryzhenkov

Battle of The Bulge

More of a last ditch effort by the Germans to salvage things on the Western Front. The end of the whole game was already assured and Germany didn't have the forces to pull off a victory.

Originally Posted by dyingsoldier

Battle of The Bulge

Meaningless last hurrah that just wasted valuable German fuel reserves.

I would definately have to say that the Battle of Briain was by far the most decided turning point in the war in Europe. (Midway in Pacific)
The English were the only country during WW2 to fight Germany alone and win! Thier Air Force was outnumbered like 2.5 to 1. They not only won, but they clearly broke Germany's invincible attitude. Some I already know are going to respond to this statement with the rebuttal that Stalingrad was the turning point(Germany lost 300,000 men.) But before Stallingrad, the Brits and Americans captured 250,000 Germans and Italians in N. Africa. Some see this as insignificant, but what would have happened if those 250,000 troops were at Stallingrad? Also, since they failed to capture England, it virtually became a floating unsinkable platform for the RAF and USAAF to bomb Germany into the prehistoric age. Also a good staging point for Western invasion of europe. Im not saying that USA and England won the war, but they should definately get half of the credit at least!

Originally Posted by BigBert96

I would definately have to say that the Battle of Briain was by far the most decided turning point in the war in Europe. (Midway in Pacific)
The English were the only country during WW2 to fight Germany alone and win! Thier Air Force was outnumbered like 2.5 to 1. They not only won, but they clearly broke Germany's invincible attitude. Some I already know are going to respond to this statement with the rebuttal that Stalingrad was the turning point(Germany lost 300,000 men.) But before Stallingrad, the Brits and Americans captured 250,000 Germans and Italians in N. Africa. Some see this as insignificant, but what would have happened if those 250,000 troops were at Stallingrad? Also, since they failed to capture England, it virtually became a floating unsinkable platform for the RAF and USAAF to bomb Germany into the prehistoric age. Also a good staging point for Western invasion of europe. Im not saying that USA and England won the war, but they should definately get half of the credit at least!

The RAF won the Battle of Britain because Hitler decided to switch to terror raids on civilians instead. The Luftwaffe were on the brink of actually winning because the fighter pilot pool of the RAF were on the edge of total exhaustion. I don't think you'll find a military historian anywhere who would agree that Germany's invincible attitude was broken as a result. Their armies had just defeated France as no nation had been defeated for centuries. Confidence could not be higher and the BEF had been sent packing back to England leaving behind all their heavy equipment. (BTW I'm a Brit just so you know my perspective on this)

The Afrika Korps losses had no impact on Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviet Union. You have to remember that Rommel only ever had 2 Panzer divisions at his disposal, his forces consisting mainly of Italian forces which were not up to German standards.

http://cosmos.oninetspeed.pt/dak/dak/orderofbattle.htm

Check out that link and you'll see that those forces would have made *zero* difference to the outcome of Barbarossa. Stalingrad as you mentioned was a decisive battle but the Battle of Moscow in December 1941 was probably just as important. This was Germany's best chance to knock the Soviet Union out of the war but delays and Hitler's meddling probably prevented a German victory.

BTW, the military impact of Allied bombing of Germany has been continually overstated. And anyway, victory was already assured by the time D-Day came around. In reality, the only thing D-Day achieved was to ensure that the whole of Western Europe did not become Soviet dominated.

The biggest achievement to victory of the Western Allies was probably Lend-Lease. IMO without this the Soviets would have been defeated by Germany.

Doppleganger, Im well aware of the RAF's impending doom in the BofB. I didn't type out the reasons they won, I already know them. THe bottom line is this, Britain won the battle, hands down. Regardless of why, they still won, and they did break the luftwaffes aura of invincibility. Maybe not the whole military populace, but the pilots who flew over England had a change of heart. And I didn't say the loss in Africa affected Barbarossa, I said it would have affected the outcome of Stallingrad in 43. True Rommel only had a handful of panzer and Mech. units. Bot most of WW2 was fought with foot soldiers. Regardless of which front or time period you look at, most of the fighting was done by infantrymen, not panzer units. And you also stated that the bombing was not that effective. Wow! By late 44, 75% of Germany's oil production had been eliminated. How is this not effective?