Turning point of WW2

That was a very interesting conversation I bet ........was a once in a lifetime chance, I would have more question than I can count for him.
Click to expand...

Most definately! Awesome to speak to someone who actually fought throught that and survived. The closest I've gotten is playing Call of Duty!

Yeah I'm fascinated by the Eastern Front too. I doubt we'll see a war ever fought quite like that again. Most people in the west have no conception of what a titanic struggle it truly was. The Russians are the only people it's claimed that know the meaning of 'total war' and I can believe it.
 
Oh yes most definately, that front was not just a war between two nations but ideologies. And I have much respect for Red Army.....even though I study more on the german side, but to try and I mean try hard to understand what happen on the Eastern front you have to look at both sides, hence why I have been reading more Russian Literature on the subject, plus learning russian hehe.
 
ok

I think it's almost impossible to defeat Russia/USSR in a war, they have so many people and the huge terrible front with the Russian winter, and what are you going to do when the army gets to the ural-mountains?.
perhaps china, europe and USA together. :?
 
The way to defeat Russia was exactly how the U.S. did it. Isolate them economically and politically, and let them tear themselves apart from within. Of course, that takes time and weak Soviet leadership, luxuries Hitler didn't have. Incidentally, doesn't it strike you as odd that Hitler and Stalin didn't get along? I mean, these guys were like peas in a pod. And if they HAD allied... hoo boy. Who's familiar with the ideological differences which kept that from happening? I'm sure not.
 
It doesn't strike me odd at all Jamoni. Both of them were among the most powerful leaders in the world. Demi-gods if I may. Are there two alpha males in a lion pride? Theres not a chance of it. Their egos must have been tremendous.

That would have been monumental. A war betwixt the economically and technologically superior United States of America allied with spirit of Great Britain, against the maniacal Germans who would fight till utterly destroyed, allied with the sheer numbers of Russia. That would make a good book.
 
Jamoni said:
Who's familiar with the ideological differences which kept that from happening? I'm sure not.
Click to expand...

Nationalism and communism, Hitler and his nationialistic pals rose to power in Germany during the late 20's by preaching against communism and the stab in the back theory which in their minds was the reason the Germans lost WW1. These two ideologies hated each other and this contributed to hatred that the war on the eastern front was fought with. Hitler had his eyes on eastern europe and russia even in the infant days of the Nazi's.
 
Stalingrad, and the russian campaign is what really did the Germans in. It crippled their Military resources. Russia's best defense, the winter.
 
The winter is tough but I think that the vastness of country is what does about everyone in. The front at it largest from the baltic to the caucasus was something in the range of 3,000 km that is a insane front to try and maintain.
 
Well, that and General Mud. Lightning War is hard to do without roads. Interesting points about Stalin vs. Hitler. Are there any good books that cover the conflict between them?
 
North Africa: El Alamein.
Eastern Front: Stalingrad and Kursk.
Pacific: Midway and Guadacanal.
Western Europe: Battle of Britain and D-day.
 
I believe the turning point was a series of decisions made by Hitler on multiple fronts, I believe under right leadership a war of attrition to Germany would be irrelevant if Germany had fully understood its military capability. First of all Germany had the most intelligent military thinkers of the time, Heinz Guderian, father of the tank, Erwin Rommel, a solid officer training program, not fully utilized by Hitler what so ever when he took command of OKW- first mistake. Secondly, Hitler totally ignored his most closest advisor Albert Speer, the armaments director who ingeniously got every once of production of the country as possible. But so much bickering inside the reich for the power struggle made Hitler spread his resources out and his thought process. Lastly BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, not utilizing the most brilliant engineers and scientists in the world, Werner Von Braun = V2 and V3 rocket, the ME 262, Stg44= the blueprints for the modern AK-47. Utilizing these weapons and brilliant minds would have put the swastika from Western Europe to the Kremlins house, GAME OVER
 
tburns said:
I believe the turning point was a series of decisions made by Hitler on multiple fronts, I believe under right leadership a war of attrition to Germany would be irrelevant if Germany had fully understood its military capability. First of all Germany had the most intelligent military thinkers of the time, Heinz Guderian, father of the tank, Erwin Rommel, a solid officer training program, not fully utilized by Hitler what so ever when he took command of OKW- first mistake. Secondly, Hitler totally ignored his most closest advisor Albert Speer, the armaments director who ingeniously got every once of production of the country as possible. But so much bickering inside the reich for the power struggle made Hitler spread his resources out and his thought process. Lastly BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, not utilizing the most brilliant engineers and scientists in the world, Werner Von Braun = V2 and V3 rocket, the ME 262, Stg44= the blueprints for the modern AK-47. Utilizing these weapons and brilliant minds would have put the swastika from Western Europe to the Kremlins house, GAME OVER
Click to expand...

Well Hitler did make a number of crucial strategic errors it's true, but none had the impact that the loss at Stalingrad had. Had Hitler fully listened to his generals, IMO they would have captured Moscow in the summer of 1942, long BEFORE the 'wonder weapons' came into play. Lucky for us that he was so arrogant that he thought they could teach him nothing.
With Moscow fallen it would have been all over for the Stalinist regime and Hitler would have been able to re-deploy his best divisions to Western Europe. Under those circumstances I seriously doubt D-Day would ever have been attempted.

Actually, wonderful though the V2 and ME262 ect were, they diverted vital resources at a time when Germany really needed to concentrate on afv and aircraft production. You're right on one point though, Hitler did not really appreciate the unique talents and abilities at his disposal. He had truly brilliant generals and scientists available and often he ignored their advice. One less well known 'decision' of Hitler was not to put German industry on a war footing in the first 2 years of the war, a telling mistake that was to have real consequences for Germany when things began to go against them. I also agree that Albert Speer was a brilliant adminstrator who did did very well for Hitler.
 
Re: i say

No MERCY said:
I'd say that the turning point was when we got smart and started to kick their A**.
Click to expand...

Sorry I dont understand, are you referring to when Pearl Harbor was attacked and the US entered the war?
 
Jamoni said:
I would say there where 3, rather than one turning point.
1. Pearl Harbor: This brought a heavily industrialized, geographically isolated, warlike country, rich in fossil fuels, into the mix. Bad news.
2. Hitler's attack on Russia. Whether he could avoid it or not, attacking the Russians opened up a second front, one which swallowed up troops and material like a black hole.
3. The loss in North Africa. This denied the Germans any chance at the rich oil deposits in the middle east. The lack of fuel was crucial in the remaining years of the war.
Sure, DDay was an incredible achievement, but it never would have been possible if the germans had been able to focus all their forces on the western front, if they had had enough fuel to move their armor/infantry effectively, and if the American air, land, and navy (and FACTORIES) hadn't had a good excuse to get involved.
Click to expand...

I agree with him, BUt pearl harbor boosted american energy and they came right back and smack the daylight out of every axis country. but the dropping of the 2 atomic bomb was payback to japan and D-day was just to get the germany out of france the russia was suppose to take care of berlin and they did.
 
In the North African Theatre- definitely El Alemein
In the Pacific Theatre- the victory at Iwo Jima
In the European Theatre- the German loss at Stalingrad
 
Wasn't Iwo Jima very important because it provided a stepping stone into Japan? And a refueling base for bombers attacking Japan. I remember reading somewhere that Iwo Jima gave the US a very very large advantage in the Pacific.

My 2 cents.
 
silent driller said:
In the North African Theatre- definitely El Alemein
In the Pacific Theatre- the victory at Iwo Jima
In the European Theatre- the German loss at Stalingrad
Click to expand...

The North African Theatre by itself, did not have any influence whatsoever over the outcome of the War in Europe, whereas Stalingrad changed the entire outcome.

Iwo Jima was indeed a major victory for the US in the Pacific Theatre, but still it did not have the impact of Stalingrad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top