Unfortunately, the Cold War had a tremendous impact on how the story of World War II was told in all non-Communist nations. Three primary things to blame:
1.) The USSR couldn't seem to offer anything close to an accurate accounting of the Eastern Front. They conveniently deleted items they didn't like (Operation Mars being a noteable example). The Soviet account mistells Kursk, the details of Stalingrad, virtually all of Barbarossa and numerous other battles. Were it not for these inaccuracies and lies, the Western World would probably be much more thankful for the immense and bloody sacrifice that the Russian people made on the Eastern Front.
2.) Giving proper credit to the USSR may have seemed unwise during the Cold War. Patting your enemy on the back, etc. Also, the Soviet Union's excuse for occupying Eastern Europe and forcing them to become Communist states was to ensure that the USSR had a security buffer between them and potentially hostile nations. So the USA and NATO members downplayed the USSR's role throughout the Cold War.
3.) Western Europe and the USA have a bad habit of only understanding history from their own point of view. A study on World War I will focus almost entirely on the Western Front, leaving a student of history to wonder if anything ever happened anywhere else. Any semi-knowledgeable person from the USA and Western Europe will recognize the name "Erwin Rommel". This is not because he was necessarily the best or the brightest German commander. Its because the West fought him numerous times, and were astounded by his abilities. We don't know names like "von Bock" or "Manstein" or "Guderian" very well because they were mostly on the Eastern Front. We didn't fight them = they were irrelevant <-- this seems to be the Western trend for WW2

There is no reasonable theory of a "Turning Point of WW2" nor "how we won?" without a lot of mention of the Eastern Front.

Here's my view of the turning points in WW2
In date order.
Battle of Britain. 1940
Kept Britain in the war, forced the Germans into fighting a two front war, and ensured the eventual involvement of the USA in the war against Germany.

Battle of Moscow 1941
With the failure of the offensive outside Moscow in late 41 Germany was faced with a long war, one she was not ready for, or capable of winning.

Pearl Harbor 1941
With this attack the Japanese brought the USA into the war against the axis nations, ensuring their eventual defeat.

After these battles the eventual defeat of the Axis powers was just a matter of time

Originally Posted by redcoat

Here's my view of the turning points in WW2
In date order.
Battle of Britain. 1940
Kept Britain in the war, forced the Germans into fighting a two front war, and ensured the eventual involvement of the USA in the war against Germany.

Battle of Moscow 1941
With the failure of the offensive outside Moscow in late 41 Germany was faced with a long war, one she was not ready for, or capable of winning.

Pearl Harbor 1941
With this attack the Japanese brought the USA into the war against the axis nations, ensuring their eventual defeat.

After these battles the eventual defeat of the Axis powers was just a matter of time

Agree with turning points 2 (somewhat) and 3, but cannot agree that the Battle of Britain was a turning point as it did not change in any way the balance of power and Operation Sealion would very likely not have been attempted anyway. You can't really say that Germany was in a 2-front war (unless you count North Africa) until Operation Husky began in mid 1943.

I wouldn't agree that the defeat of the Axis powers was just a matter of time either. Although the Battle of Moscow was Germany's best chance to KO the Soviet Union, Germany was very much still in the ascendancy all through 1942 and still had a good chance to defeat the Soviet Union in 42/43.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

Agree with turning points 2 (somewhat) and 3, but cannot agree that the Battle of Britain was a turning point as it did not change in any way the balance of power and Operation Sealion would very likely not have been attempted anyway.

Quite true. However the important part of the Battle of Britain was that it was fought in the first place. and while it didn't lead immeditely to a second front it helped ensure that the USA would get involved in the war against Germany and that there would be a second front

I wouldn't agree that the defeat of the Axis powers was just a matter of time either. Although the Battle of Moscow was Germany's best chance to KO the Soviet Union, Germany was very much still in the ascendancy all through 1942 and still had a good chance to defeat the Soviet Union in 42/43.

Well maybe I was over-egging the statement a little, but I tend to take the view that the German 1941 offensive was the most realistic chance to defeat the SU. After this while the Nazi's may have been in with a chance of success the odds were starting to turn against them

I agree with drilldown master that when the USA came to help out in Europe, most of Germany has been taken by USSR, and all the USA could do was just march in to the city and say they defeated Germany, while USSR did all the real work. USA was just waiting out a moment when the USSR had Germany beaten , then only did USA forces came into action, which wasnt much help.

And Doppleganger u say that D-day stopped the Soviets from takin over all of Europe, while they liberated all of Europe, by destroying the German forces in their territory, and they didnt keep the land of the countries they liberated. they gave it back fair and square. And i also think that the Berlin wall was a good idea to do beacuse then one side of Berlin could actually do what French and British failed to, and that is keep the German forces under control and dont let them expand to start another WW3.

Originally Posted by Kirill K

And Doppleganger u say that D-day stopped the Soviets from takin over all of Europe, while they liberated all of Europe, by destroying the German forces in their territory, and they didnt keep the land of the countries they liberated. they gave it back fair and square. And i also think that the Berlin wall was a good idea to do beacuse then one side of Berlin could actually do what French and British failed to, and that is keep the German forces under control and dont let them expand to start another WW3.

Well technically they may have 'given back' the land that they conquered from the Germans but that didnt stop them installing puppet regimes in every country they liberated ala Poland, Hungary, Romania and so on. Communist regimes would have been installed in the whole of Germany, Holland, Belgium, France, Italy and perhaps Spain too if D-Day hadn't happened. So although you are correct to say that the USSR wouldn't have occupied these countries, their sphere of influence would have extended over the whole of mainland Europe.

Well you say that they were about to install communist government there, but look what USA is doing now. They overthrown Sadam and are installing there own right hand President in Iraq, and other countries that already were infected with USA's "righteous government". But when he wanted to overthrow the Cuban president Russia held them because they were goin to far.

Originally Posted by Kirill K

Well you say that they were about to install communist government there, but look what USA is doing now. They overthrown Sadam and are installing there own right hand President in Iraq, and other countries that already were infected with USA's "righteous government". But when he wanted to overthrow the Cuban president Russia held them because they were goin to far.

it is true, there has to be an eastern-american power ratio.
now that the SU is gone the US does everything that they wish.
I was hoping EU to do something about it, but it seems to be more of a commercial union

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

Agree with Points 1 and 2, although Stalingrad was a strategic defeat for Germany at which the Soviets suffered nearly 3 times the casualties.

Hi guys. Good to post here again. I see a real potential for research in the interest displayed here on the Soviet-German war.

On Stalingrad statistics, I think its crucial to know your sources. If you rely on what a particular historian writes down and credits to somebody, you are not exactly thinking for yourself.

If you have German or Russian wartime docs, please share them. I certainly would be interested. For my part, I can email you scans of German docs (in Russian translation.) Reading posts on this forum encouraged me to look them up.

-David.

I would have to say in the war in the pacific, the battle for Kokoda (and the PNG campaign in general). It was the point at which the Japanese army finally was slowed and bogged down during their route of the pacific.

If it wasn't for the Australian effort there, they would have taken PNG and ended up in Northern Australia. That would have been a big problem for all involved.

In terms of the European campaign, I would say D-Day, and the Battle Of Stalingrad.

I would also say the British Merchant Navy campaign in the North Atlantic from 1939 to 1943 was important, not as a turn around, but if it had been broken by the Germans then the war would have changed direction again.