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!
godofthunder9010 said: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.
godofthunder9010 said: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.
GuyontheRight said: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.
GuyontheRight said:Hey Dopplegagner, this may be a little off topic, but have you read Alan Clarke Barbarossa? This is really the only account of the eastern Front Ive had, and of course it was written in '65, so Ive been worried it's been plaugued by Propiganda (For instance, their is no mention of the Operation Mars).
GuyontheRight said:Italy=a pretty big army with good techology
As much as it pains me to say this (I have alot of Italian pride) Iralians cant fight for anything. The Army of Mussolini was horribly motivated and usless. Furhtermore their capacity to manufacture weapons was extremly limited. The only reason italy joined Germany was because Mussolini was scared of being knocked off the world stage.