Originally Posted by Korean Seaboy

I believe in the following (though not ranked by importance)
1) Kursk-Although Stalingrad and Moscow were decisive, Kursk determined the entire outcome of the war. With the lost of Kursk, German hopes for a victory, or even a stalemate were lost completely
2) Leyte Gulf-Although Pearl Harbor and Midway were decisive, Leyte Gulf showed which fleet were superior and the Japanese losses were considerable. It was also like Kursk, which ultimately determined the fate of Japan
3) Of course, Stalingrad, Moscow, Midway, and Pearl Harbor were also decisive battles, with D-day and El Alamein being major, yet I believe those two battles sealed the war's fate to a point which the Germans and the Japanese realized they have lost

On the question of whether Germany had not attacked the Soviet Union: It is an impossibility. Even if Hitler had honored the pact (which was extremely unlikely due to ideological differences and hate for each other), Stalin wouldn't had. Stalin even wrote that if Germany hadn't invaded in 1941, the Soviet Union would have had in 1942, when all preparations for war would have been complete. Nazi and Communism differences were very pronounced, as Nazism were right-wing and Communism were left-wing. Not only that, but anti-Communism feelings were high even before the Eastern Europe campaign in Germany, and the signing of the Anti-Comintern pact by Germany showed how much hatred there were between the two countries

Kursk:the myth of Kursk never will die,because Kursk only is myth .If the Germans had won at Kursk,the result would still be the Red Flag hanging on the Reichstag .Already on 1 september 1941,Germany had lost its chances to defeat the SU .
The same for Midway and Leyte :if Japan had won,they still would lose the war .

I aggree with those who stated that Hitler's idea of turning against the Soviet Union and launching operation Barbarossa was the actual turning point of the war.

A multiple-front war can only be fought from a defensive position, and all prior campaigns against Russia had proven that.
The Swedes failed, Napoelon failed, Kaiser Wilhelm II. failed, and Hitler failed to learn from history.

All I see is a lot of "ifs" the problem for me is:
1) Britain was not really a second front in 1939-42, it was just pimple on the arse of Europe, there was no way in hell Britain and the Commonwealth could have crossed the channel to retake Europe and there was no chance that the Germans could cross the channel to defeat Britain, it was always destined to be a Mexican stand off.

2) Germany and Russia could not survive together, they are opposing ideologies had Germany not attacked Russia Stalin would have attacked Germany it is as simple as that.

For me the real turning point in WW2 (European Theatre) was the Italian failure in the Balkans that dragged Germany into a 6 week campaign in the region thus delaying Operation Barbarossa by 6 weeks, time that would have made a huge difference on the Eastern front.

Originally Posted by 84RFK

I aggree with those who stated that Hitler's idea of turning against the Soviet Union and launching operation Barbarossa was the actual turning point of the war.

A multiple-front war can only be fought from a defensive position, and all prior campaigns against Russia had proven that.
The Swedes failed, Napoelon failed, Kaiser Wilhelm II. failed, and Hitler failed to learn from history.

I don't think that Kaiser Wilhelm II failed :there was the treaty of Brest-Litowsk.

I think three of the biggest blunders were by Hitler.
1) Not invading the British Isles.
2) Invading the Soviet Union, thus forcing German forces to fight on two fronts.
3) Hitler declaring war on the USA on Dec. 11, 1941. After Dec. 7th, most Americans felt, the war against Japan was 'our' enemy not the Germans. That Germany was the problem of the Europeans, the USA would fight Japan in the Pacific Ocean. By declaring war on the USA four days after Pearl Harbor, Germany gave the American government a valid reason to make the war against Germany the top priority.

Even before the war Germany and Japan had not prepared for a long drawn out war, neither had the industry for that. They had not developed a long range bombers, similar in capability to the B-17.

Originally Posted by AVON

I think three of the biggest blunders were by Hitler.
1) Not invading the British Isles.
2) Invading the Soviet Union, thus forcing German forces to fight on two fronts.
3) Hitler declaring war on the USA on Dec. 11, 1941. After Dec. 7th, most Americans felt, the war against Japan was 'our' enemy not the Germans. That Germany was the problem of the Europeans, the USA would fight Japan in the Pacific Ocean. By declaring war on the USA four days after Pearl Harbor, Germany gave the American government a valid reason to make the war against Germany the top priority.

Even before the war Germany and Japan had not prepared for a long drawn out war, neither had the industry for that. They had not developed a long range bombers, similar in capability to the B-17.

1)Invading the British Isles was impossible
2)If you have a viable alternative for an invasion of the SU,let us know
3)Hitler was convinced that war with the US was inevitable .
"Germany was the problem of the Europeans "? Never heard of the "Germany first strategy"?

Originally Posted by MontyB

All I see is a lot of "ifs" the problem for me is:
1) Britain was not really a second front in 1939-42, it was just pimple on the arse of Europe, there was no way in hell Britain and the Commonwealth could have crossed the channel to retake Europe and there was no chance that the Germans could cross the channel to defeat Britain, it was always destined to be a Mexican stand off.

2) Germany and Russia could not survive together, they are opposing ideologies had Germany not attacked Russia Stalin would have attacked Germany it is as simple as that.

For me the real turning point in WW2 (European Theatre) was the Italian failure in the Balkans that dragged Germany into a 6 week campaign in the region thus delaying Operation Barbarossa by 6 weeks, time that would have made a huge difference on the Eastern front.

1) The Italian failure in Greece had nothing to do with the delay of Barbarossa :the planning for the invasion of Greece (Marita) was finished in december 1940
2)Even without the German invasion of Yugoslavia,Barbarossa would be delayed,because of the late Spring Rasputitsa
2)If the Germans had 6 more weeks,the same for the Russians :the German attack already had failed at the end of august,thus 6 weeks more would not change anything .

Originally Posted by MontyB

All I see is a lot of "ifs" the problem for me is:
1) Britain was not really a second front in 1939-42, it was just pimple on the arse of Europe, there was no way in hell Britain and the Commonwealth could have crossed the channel to retake Europe and there was no chance that the Germans could cross the channel to defeat Britain, it was always destined to be a Mexican stand off.

Some pimple - seeing as you are claiming that Germany had no chance of defeating it!

And let me remind you that as Britain was the last man standing , in fact Europe was the pimple on the arse of Britain at the time.You can't compare it to the NZ and Australia situation.

Originally Posted by Del Boy

Some pimple - seeing as you are claiming that Germany had no chance of defeating it!

And let me remind you that as Britain was the last man standing , in fact Europe was the pimple on the arse of Britain at the time.You can't compare it to the NZ and Australia situation.

Sorry but it is a reality, without the American manpower there was no chance to retake Europe, without American resources Britain was finished.

Do not assume I am backing the idea that the USA won WW2 as without Britain America could not have retaken Europe either.

At the same time Germany could not invade Britain therefore the war in the West was over, the RN could do little but keep Germany landlocked and the RAF alone could not have caused enough damage to bring about the defeat of Germany.

Let me point out that India raised a army of 8 million men to fight for Britain, and more could have followed. Also many of these men fought very well and won many VC's, India's role in WW2 is often over looked and they made a large contribution to war effort in both World Wars