Id go for the Battle of Britain as it was the first defeat for the germans-showed they could be defeated- and it probably boosted morale and if britain had fallen who knows how the war would of ended!

Stalingrad was the turningpoint for the Germans. After the defeat there, the Germans mounted an attack at Kursk. That attack failed and from then on the Germans were on the defensive. Even if there was no D-Day, Germany would have eventually fell to the Russians. The threat of an Allied assualt kept many troops on the Atlantic Wall.

The Battle of Britian was too early to be considered the turning point of WWII. Britian may have won its survivial, but the Germans were pounding the Russian.

On the Pacific side of things, Midway was the turning point for the Japanese. With the loss of their air craft carriers, the Japanese would never be able to stop the Americans.

Stalingrad is BY FAR the most decisive turning point of World War II, followed by the Battle for Moscow. Lets face it, Russia bled for the rest of the world in that war and it was them that stopped the German war machine head on. It cost an estimated 27,000,000 Russian lives, all totalled. Sure, Britain stopped the Luftwaffe, but the Luftwaffe was never Germany's best card to play. No, that would be the PANZERS.

Slightly less important was the front that everyone seems to be completely leaving out: China. If Russia was the Black Hole that sucked away Germany's military options, well then China was Japan's ruination. Approximately 20,000,000 dead Chinese ... at that least ought to merit their being mentioned as having been involved in the war. I'm open to suggestions for what battles were the decisive turing point on that front.

Now if we are want to annalyze why the Axis lost, here are some highpoints:
1.) The order to the German Army to stop their attack on the BEF at Dunkirk. There would have been no more BEF if that hadn't happened and that would have been very scary for the ol' UK.

2.) Hitler pulling Army Group Center back and sending them after the Ukraine. If he hadn't, Moscow falls, and Russia's ability to repel Germany ends before the end of 1942.

3.) The US economy was insanely productive compared anybody elses at that time, dragging our nation into it was just plain stupid on the Axis part. Honestly, I don't know how Germany or Japan would have ever managed to take the US down and both had an ocean blocking them from even attempting it.

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

Stalingrad is BY FAR the most decisive turning point of World War II, followed by the Battle for Moscow. Lets face it, Russia bled for the rest of the world in that war and it was them that stopped the German war machine head on. It cost an estimated 27,000,000 Russian lives, all totalled. Sure, Britain stopped the Luftwaffe, but the Luftwaffe was never Germany's best card to play. No, that would be the PANZERS.

Slightly less important was the front that everyone seems to be completely leaving out: China. If Russia was the Black Hole that sucked away Germany's military options, well then China was Japan's ruination. Approximately 20,000,000 dead Chinese ... at that least ought to merit their being mentioned as having been involved in the war. I'm open to suggestions for what battles were the decisive turing point on that front.

Now if we are want to annalyze why the Axis lost, here are some highpoints:
1.) The order to the German Army to stop their attack on the BEF at Dunkirk. There would have been no more BEF if that hadn't happened and that would have been very scary for the ol' UK.

2.) Hitler pulling Army Group Center back and sending them after the Ukraine. If he hadn't, Moscow falls, and Russia's ability to repel Germany ends before the end of 1942.

3.) The US economy was insanely productive compared anybody elses at that time, dragging our nation into it was just plain stupid on the Axis part. Honestly, I don't know how Germany or Japan would have ever managed to take the US down and both had an ocean blocking them from even attempting it.

Yep, I agree, Stalingrad was the biggest turning point of WW2.

I don't know enough about the War in the Far East, but I would suggest that Pearl Harbor was probably more significant than any war in China. How high would the ordinary American's desire have been for war otherwise?

I don't believe Dunkirk had a great influence on the eventual outcome of WW2, for reasons I mentioned earlier in this thread.

I agree that the diverting of Army Group Centre and in particular Panzergruppens 2 & 3 to help in the capture of the Ukraine was significant. However, there is a school of thought to say that Hitler may have been correct to do this, otherwise the German forces pushing towards Moscow may have been in danger of being outflanked on their right side. But Operation Typhoon was (with hindsight) decisively delayed as a result.

The delay of Barbarossa until June 22 in 1941 was another decision that may have been critical.

The US industrial might was another huge factor in WW2. Lend-Lease was vital in allowing the Red Army to recover after their stunning losses in 41/42 and their sheer AFV and plane production totals throughout the war were staggering. From a military and strategic viewpoint it was a massive mistake for the Axis powers to drag the USA in. Had the Japanese not attacked Pearl Harbor and had instead pushed into Siberian Russia, 25 Siberian divisions that literally saved Moscow in 1941 might not have been there to do that.

Forgive me, and please correct any mistakes in the following


1) Stalingrad was easily the most promenient German turning point

2) Tobruk spelled serious trouble for the Afrika Korps under Rommel though, and was the turning point for Africa's liberation. Tobruk gave the Allied Forces a holding point by which they could transport troops onto the continent near hotspots

3) Midway was the turning point for the Pacific Fleet where they were able to seriously damage Japanese naval vessels.

My reason for listing Dunkirk as decissive is pretty simple. The idea of invading Britain minus the BEF and other forces that were rescued from Dunkirk would have greatly increased the likelihood of Germany putting together an invasion force of some kind. They might have had to smuggle troops across and land in remote areas of Britain, but because Great Britain was able to salvage that mass of its proffessional army, German options to invade Britain become quite unattractive. Who knows, Hitler might have done the intelligent thing and focussed on finishing off the Brits before trying to tackle the Russians. Dunkirk + Battle of Britain and the RAF's stunning success were crucial in leaving a real threat in the West.

I never said that the Brits were going to fold easily over the lack of the Miracle of Dunkirk. Still, if the Germans had ever made a successful landing on the British Isles with a strong force, who's to say what happens. The French were probably of a similar mindset, but at that point in the war, nobody had adapted to the German Blitzkrieg tactics. A numerically superior French/British force lost in 40 days in France. How long could Great Britain have held out if Germany managed to invade? Of course, the British Fleet coming to the rescue always comes up at this point. Lucky that nobody knew how good air power worked against navies at that stage, or Germany would have lured the Royal Navy into striking distance by launching a false invasion fleet and into the English Channel. What choice does the Royal Navy have under those circumstances? My point is, minus the BEF, Germany has lots of options there.

As far as the Chinese side of the War, I'll have to do some in depth research on it since nobody seems to know anything about it. Consider that Japan had to divert substantial effort in pursuing the Chinese front. In the East, China was the nation that bled for the Allied cause, and stopped the Japanese war machine. Had they not, Russia would have faced a very large threat on their Eastern side. Additionally, consider Japan with a conquerred China and all its human and natural resources ... that's a scary thought now isn't it? Many doubt that Japan could have completely taken all of China, but then again, nobody ever thought they would take as much of China as they did.

Yes, Midway should be listed as a major turning point. Still, Japan was never the greatest threat and so the "biggest turning point for Germany" is the biggest turning point for the whole game.

Pearl Harbor/Hitler Declares War on USA-it established that the Axis could not work together on a combined front (Russia) and that the allies would.

I disagree about Stalingrad, from what Ive read the German Army had chances to regain the intiiative (Kursk) but did not. Those Panzers used in Kursk should have been sent to Tunis to repell a weaker allied force then be used in an attack that went nowhere fast. I firmly belive that if Germany would have not launched the offensive at Kursk, and instead chose to fight tactical advances against the Russian, then the Kremlin, with it's population a huge casulty from the war already, would have sued for peace.

One thing that is generally agreed on is that there are 3 crucial battles. Moscow, Stalingrad and Kurtsk. The really big deal about Stalingrad was: 1.) complete destruction of an entire army. 2.) The Russians proved to themselves that they could win a decissive battle. Its the second of those that I would site as the "why" for Stalingrad over Kurtsk.

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

One thing that is generally agreed on is that there are 3 crucial battles. Moscow, Stalingrad and Kurtsk. The really big deal about Stalingrad was: 1.) complete destruction of an entire army. 2.) The Russians proved to themselves that they could win a decissive battle. Its the second of those that I would site as the "why" for Stalingrad over Kurtsk.

Actually Kursk wasn't all that decisive a battle. German losses for Kursk were no higher than for any other battle fought in 1943. It's a misconception fuelled by Soviet propaganda that the Wehrmacht was severely mauled during Zitadelle - it wasn't. Truth is, average panzer division operational status was the highest it had been for some months even after Zitadelle had officially ended.

What WAS decisive for Germany was NOT choosing to employ Manstein's 'backhand' alternative plan. This would have cut off the Soviet South West and Don Fronts and perhaps have completely smashed them. This may have given the initiative back to the Wehrmacht and have changed the entire fact of the Ostfront.

It's a misconception fuelled by Soviet propaganda that the Wehrmacht was severely mauled during Zitadelle - it wasn't. Truth is, average panzer division operational status was the highest it had been for some months even after Zitadelle had officially ended.

It was a waste in effort and operational capability. Alot more could have been accomplished for alot less. Keep in mind the Wehrmacht sacrificed tanks that could of been used to save Italy.