Turning Point of WW2

[Anthem]

what do you guys consider the turning point of WW2 in Europe. i would go with Stalingrad. the German army lost something like a quarter of its strength on the eastern front and was from then on almost always on the defensive.

[Cyrus Johnson]

what do you guys consider the turning point of WW2 in Europe. i would go with Stalingrad. the German army lost something like a quarter of its strength on the eastern front and was from then on almost always on the defensive.

I wouldn't say there was one particular turning point. This was one among others; the Kursk offensive, the invasion of Italy and Normandy were all turning points. Although Stalingrad marks the delineation between where things were going bad for the Allies, and when things started to go bad for the Axis powers.

That's my opinion.

[NeilUnreal]

It's tough to pick a single turning point, but I think I would rank the end of the Battle of Britain as a major one. It assured the allies a safe base for the re-invasion of Europe.

Another one is Pearl Harbor, since it made it politically possible for the U.S. to form an alliance with Britain on both fronts, and solidified American war opinion.

-Neil

[Cyrus Johnson]

It's tough to pick a single turning point, but I think I would rank the end of the Battle of Britain as a major one. It assured the allies a safe base for the re-invasion of Europe.

Good one.

Another one is Pearl Harbor, since it made it politically possible for the U.S. to form an alliance with Britain on both fronts, and solidified American war opinion.

-Neil

The OP asked for turning points in Europe. This event eventually effected the war in Europe, by bringing the Americans in, but it didn't happen in Europe. I think that's what the OP was going for.

[furay]

Stalingrad + Kursk

[Dienekes]

The true turning point of WWII was the decision not to give up Stalingrad. Stalingrad was a small city with no economical or political or military purpose but it was named after Stalin because he liked the area. Hitler in his brilliant wisedom decided to attack it as a punch to Stalins ego. However the force snt in was not ready for Russian winters and we all know how that went.

What many people didn't know is 12 miles from Stalingrad there is a mine, not just any mine but a coal mine and a iron mine and the largest tank factory in Russia. This was all the resources the USSR needed to keep the war running win this and Russia is out of the war (or really there tanks are out and their fuel and their rockets and so forth, so win this and we have enemies without equipment charging at you I like these odds). And the icing on this cake was 5 out of the 6 regimens sent to protect this site were sent to Stalingrad and were not replaced. It was a looming target screaming at Hitler HIT ME HIT ME. and three of Hitlers high generals told him this but after having one of them executed these yellings seemed to stop.

My analysis of what would happen if Germany had attacked or if anything at least bombed this area. The soviets would loose their tanks, the best in the world at that time. Eventually, if Hitler would stop getting in the way of his generals, they would corner Stalin and cause surrender fairly shortly. General Waffen would realalize that bombing of political cities doesn't work and continue (if he had the russian resources) to bomb military sites like he did before the Blitz of London (he had realized this way earlier but was afraid to tell Hitler his mistake). The russian front over the germans could consentrate their full army on the now won over French Front. Japan raids would call too much attention and America would pull out. With the funds they now had Hitler would not have canselled the Atomic Bomb project and would have made it earlier than the US. game for Germany.

[Jayhawk]

what do you guys consider the turning point of WW2 in Europe. i would go with Stalingrad. the German army lost something like a quarter of its strength on the eastern front and was from then on almost always on the defensive.
Hitler's decision in Aug. 1941 to divert Guderian's II Panzergruppe south to encircle the Soviet armies around Kiev rather than continuing the drive on Moscow. It is very reasonable to conclude that Moscow could've been taken before the muddy season had Hitler not ignored Guderian's pleas. Had Moscow fallen, the entire rail network would've been useless to the Soviets and the communist govt. may have fallen as well. If the Germans win in the east, they win the war.

[TheOneAndOnly]

Although Stalingrad marks the delineation between where things were going bad for the Allies, and when things started to go bad for the Axis powers.

Stalingrad, Moscow or Alamein. In the European theatre that is.

In the Pacific, Midway. After that, it was only a matter of time before Japan's annexed territories were liberated (or returned to their "rightful" Imperial overlords).
But I think after Pearl Harbour it was a forgone conclusion that Japan had bitten off more than it could chew.

[TheOneAndOnly]

Hitler's decision in Aug. 1941 to divert Guderian's II Panzergruppe south to encircle the Soviet armies around Kiev rather than continuing the drive on Moscow. It is very reasonable to conclude that Moscow could've been taken before the muddy season had Hitler not ignored Guderian's pleas. Had Moscow fallen, the entire rail network would've been useless to the Soviets and the communist govt. may have fallen as well. If the Germans win in the east, they win the war.

Also, if Moscow was taken, perhaps the Soviet manufacturing base would be within range of Luftwaffe bombers (assuming the German advance could be relatively unopposed for a few hundred kms after Moscow), destroying any chance of the Soviets rebuilding their military.

[Jayhawk]

Also, if Moscow was taken, perhaps the Soviet manufacturing base would be within range of Luftwaffe bombers (assuming the German advance could be relatively unopposed for a few hundred kms after Moscow), destroying any chance of the Soviets rebuilding their military.
Agreed. The manufacturing centers in the Urals (Tankograd, et al) could've been bombed by the Luftwaffe. And with the loss of the mineral basin of the Ukraine and over half of the Soviet population in German-occupied territory, the material resources to wage a continous war would've been soon exhausted even if the political will of the Communist Party remained. The Wehrmacht could've then withdrawln at least half of its forces to shore up the Western Front and either attempt operation Sealion or hold the Allies off the continent indefinitely. A scary proposition to be sure. All but for one providential decision of a madman.

[James Peter]

I'm with the Battle of Britain, although I am a little biased. Without the BoB England would have been invaded and would almost certainly have eventually fallen. You'd then have been left with a war between Germany and Russia which even if the Russians had won would have led to the 'iron curtain' not so much being a curtain as covering all of Europe. You probably wouldn't even have had a Pacific Theatre in such circumstances and the US would probably not have got involved in the war at all (would the US have attacked the UK to liberate us? I doubt it). So without the BoB being won you have the option of choosing between an entirely Fascist Europe (which would undoubtedly have become a world superpower) or an entirely communist Europe (which would have been far stronger than the US). All told, without the BoB being won the 20th Century would have looked very, very different.

[Gromit45]

British General Montgomery pushing back Rommel in North Africa

On the other front: Battle of Midway

[NeilUnreal]

"Never in the field of human endeavour was so much owed by so many to so few."

-- Sir Winston Churchill, Speaking of the Battle of Britian

[FirstSunday33ad]

what do you guys consider the turning point of WW2 in Europe. i would go with Stalingrad. the German army lost something like a quarter of its strength on the eastern front and was from then on almost always on the defensive.

If you use as a definition the meaning "The point after which victory became impossible but before which victory was still obtainable" I would have to go with Kursk. The Germans could have still secured victory by stalemate if they had fortified the East; withdrawing Army Group North back from Leningrad and Army Group Centre out of Orel and Kharkov to smooth out the Eastern front. If they had then used the Summer of '43 to build defensive positions in depth and concentrated on surpressing guerrilla activity in their rear areas, they could have secured their Eastern possessions.

This would have given them greater resources to make available to reinforce Sicily and Italy in preparation for the Allied invasion in the Mediterranean. Instead of tens of thousands of men, thousands of tanks and artillery pieces, and over 1800 aircraft being squandered on a useless offensive at Kursk; seven days before the allies landed in Sicily; they would have had this material plus what would have been freed by shortening the Eastern front made available for defensive operations in the South.

Although Overlord may still have proceeded as planned in '44, it is unlikely that the Allies in the West would have enjoyed the successes as quickly as they did. This would have given the Germans the time needed to reinforce the Rhine defences and to turn Germany into a balled fist.

From there it is possible that the allies would either have had to bleed themselves white trying to crack the German defenses or agree to a negotiated peace.

Kursk - even if it had been a success and not a total disaster - made that impossible.

[Cyrus Johnson]

I'm with the Battle of Britain, although I am a little biased. Without the BoB England would have been invaded and would almost certainly have eventually fallen.

What about the Battle of the Atlantic? Even if the BoB was won, if Britain had lost that (as they nearly did) they would have been starved into submission anyway. Possibly the people would have rose up and demanded a government more accomodating to the Nazis.

[Bubbahotep]

I really do think that a good argument can be made that the turning point of the war in Europe was Pearl Harbor, or more specifically, Hitler's decision afterwards to declare war on the US in support of his Japanese ally. Hitler didn't have to do this, but at the time his forces just outside of Moscow were having a really tough time. Old General Winter had joined in on the side of the Russians and had bogged down the Germans. The Russians were regaining ground in front of Moscow and Hitler apparently was more than a little upset and chose to take out his frustration by declaring war. Dumb move as it meant that now even those isolationists or pro-fascists in the US would patriotically support the government and their nation. And the US was a powerhouse unequaled in the rest of the world, with no enemies able to get within thousands of miles of the homeland. The US' industrial output helped keep both Britain and Russia alive during the next few years and eventually was instrumental in defeating Germany. Without US involvement Britain had no chance of invading Fortress Europe. Britain could control the seas around and the air above England only by importing a lot of resources from the Americas. The Russian army was also well supplied by the Americans. It is doubtful either of them could have survived without American involvement. When the US came into the war strongly on the side of the allies and united after divisive pre-war years there was no doubt about the final outcome.

Unless Germany could somehow defeat Russia very quickly and then turn its entire effort to the west and prevent the US from using Britain as a springboard back into Europe. And American aid to Russia helped prevent Germany's bid to win the war in the east. My two cents, anyway.

[Kain]

Hitler's decision to invade USSR in a Blitz campaign, making the same mistakes as Napoleon who tried the same over a century earlier.

A country the size of USSR can only be taken by small nibbles. Advance a bit, dig-in for attrition warfare, secure supply lines, wait out winter, repeat.

But for all this to be possible, you'll have to be fighting a single-front war. When Hitler invaded USSR, he left a still viable Britian behind him and the Mediteranian in Allied control.

For Germany to have had a fighting chance, they would have had to first:
1. Neutralize England -- secure back
2. Control Gibraltar \
3. Control the Suez Canal / secure soft underbelly

2 and 3 would fall into place if 1 was taken care of early. His main assault should have been aimed at England. With England gone, the rest of the original Allies would have become marginalized and Hitlar would be in a very strong position by the time the US was ready to enter the war. By then, it would not matter as WW2 was a race for the atom bomb, with some breathing space, Germany was in a position to build it first.

[TheOneAndOnly]

I'm with the Battle of Britain, although I am a little biased. Without the BoB England would have been invaded and would almost certainly have eventually fallen.

I don't believe this is true, and I think the British army came to this conclusion after the war after conducting simulations of possible scenarios. Even if the Luftwaffe had destroyed the RAF, any possible invasion would have been ultimately doomed to failure from the start. Any German invasion would have had to be a sort of reverse of D-Day in 1944. ANd that was when the Allies had overwhelming firepower, air cover, artillary support and logistics. The German invasion would have had no such luxury. The Royal Navy, for a start, would have blown most of the invasion force to bits. I'm pretty sure the British army, after the war, studied the various scenarios and came to the same conclusion. A German invasion of Britain was utterly out of the question. Even right after Dunkirk German forces were in no position to launch any invasion.

So without the BoB being won you have the option of choosing between an entirely Fascist Europe (which would undoubtedly have become a world superpower) or an entirely communist Europe (which would have been far stronger than the US). All told, without the BoB being won the 20th Century would have looked very, very different.

If the BoB had been lost Britain would have been left with a defeated air force, little air defence against German bomber raids, cities left in tatters, and an increasingly demoralized population. Germany would have never been able to muster the resources and manpower to launch a successful invasion, not least after the USSR had been invaded. At worst Britain would have asked for peace.

[panama]

I'd like to throw into consideration a little known battle. Although technicly not a part of WWII , it essentialy ended the day before WWII began , It had a profound effect on the war as a whole. This battle may well have determined the outcome before the war even started.(from wiki)

The Battle of Khalkhin Gol
11 May - 16 September 1938

Soviets-6,831 killed, 15,952 wounded of 57000 combatants
Japan- 8,440 killed, 8,766 wounded of 30000 combatants
The battle began as a border dispute between the Soviets and Japanese on the Khalkha River in Mongolia on 11 May. On 1 July the Japanese under Lt. Gen. Michitaro Komatsubara invade across the river but are thrown back. The Soviet commander Zhukov attacks with three infantry divisions, massed artillery, a tank brigade along with the Red Air Force on 20 Aug.
"Japanese doctrine at the time was for front-line troops to hold their positions with high rates of fire, and await relief actions from the rear. While very successful against the lightly armed Chinese forces, the Soviet tanks turned the tables on them entirely, and the front lines were cut off. Two complete divisions were surrounded while the other forces were scattered. On 27 August the Japanese attempted to break out of the encirclement, but failed. When the surrounded forces refused to surrender, Zhukov wiped them out with artillery and air attacks. The battle ended 31 August with the complete destruction of the Japanese forces."
31 Aug. Japan asks for a cease-fire .

Results: Pacific Theater:
The defeat convinced the Imperial General Staff in Tokyo that the policy of the North Strike Group , favored by the army, which wanted to seize Siberia as far as Lake Baikal for its resources, was untenable. Instead the South Strike Group , favored by the navy, which wanted to seize the resources of Southeast Asia, especially the petroleum- and mineral-rich Dutch East Indies , gained the ascendancy, leading directly to the attack on Pearl Harbor two and a half years later in December 1941.
This battle was directy linked to the attack which brought on the entrance of the U.S. into the war , with fatal concequences to both the Nazis and Japanese.

Results: Europe:
The battle experience gained by the Siberian army was put to good use in December 1941 outside Moscow, under the command of Zhukov, when Siberian divisions spearheaded the first successful Soviet counteroffensive against the German invasion of 1941. The decision to move the divisions from Siberia was aided by the Soviet's masterspy Richard Sorge in Tokyo, who was able to alert the Soviet government that the Japanese were looking south and were unlikely to launch another attack against Siberia in the immediate future.
As neither side in this battle was open about their opinions as to its result, Adolf Hitler had no idea when he declared war on the United States. He had hoped to gain Japanese support against the Soviet Union with this act, unaware that his ally was unwilling to do so because of the previous encounter.
It seems likely that had the Japanese gone to war with the Soviets instead of the U.S. in 1941 that the Nazis would have been in Moscow by mid 1942 , giving them the victory.One of historys big if's.

Thomas

[Hitch]

Unless Germany could somehow defeat Russia very quickly and then turn its entire effort to the west and prevent the US from using Britain as a springboard back into Europe. And American aid to Russia helped prevent Germany's bid to win the war in the east. My two cents, anyway.


This is why I reckon the 'turning point' to be Hilter's invasion of Russia.

H

[shunyadragon]

what do you guys consider the turning point of WW2 in Europe. i would go with Stalingrad. the German army lost something like a quarter of its strength on the eastern front and was from then on almost always on the defensive.

I would consider Hitler's premature decision to invade the Soviet Union as the most important deciding point in the war. This decision divided and stretched the German military and gave the opportunity for the allies to achieve the victories they did in the European theater.

The Battle of Midway was the turning point of the war against Japan.

[Ben Franklin]

I had heard that Hitler declared war against Germany because he wanted to beat America to the punch... Did Hitler really think Roosevelt was going to declare war on Japan AND Germany at the same time...?

[Durthorin]

I don't believe this is true, and I think the British army came to this conclusion after the war after conducting simulations of possible scenarios. Even if the Luftwaffe had destroyed the RAF, any possible invasion would have been ultimately doomed to failure from the start. Any German invasion would have had to be a sort of reverse of D-Day in 1944. ANd that was when the Allies had overwhelming firepower, air cover, artillary support and logistics. The German invasion would have had no such luxury. The Royal Navy, for a start, would have blown most of the invasion force to bits. I'm pretty sure the British army, after the war, studied the various scenarios and came to the same conclusion. A German invasion of Britain was utterly out of the question. Even right after Dunkirk German forces were in no position to launch any invasion.


I think you overlook the concept of the German's winning the BoB. If they had they would have had total control of the air over England and the Channel. Their is no doubt they would have had the numerical advantage to continue pounding the RAF airfields and Radar. At that point after and invasion England would had the same problem as France had.. a large ground force unable to move without being cut up by close air support, production and fuel supplies destroyed etc. If the Wermacht was also acting inteligently then raw materials sites would be falling to their advance as well. As for RN to regain control would have required a large portion if not all of their carriers. Considering that Ark Royal went down with a single torpedo hit from a submarine, Englands early war carriers were not really up to that type of slugging match. The additonal issue is where would they have sallied from if most British ports were either being bombed into rubble or under constant airel survellance. Sorry don't see it.

But to do this Germany would have had to maintain a single front war against England until the island was conquered.

[Bubbahotep]

Hitler's decision to invade USSR in a Blitz campaign, making the same mistakes as Napoleon who tried the same over a century earlier.

A country the size of USSR can only be taken by small nibbles. Advance a bit, dig-in for attrition warfare, secure supply lines, wait out winter, repeat.

I disagree. Hitler could have taken Russia if he had started Barbarossa earlier, as he had planned. The unrest and deposing of the pro-Axis government in Yugoslavia and replacement by a pro-British government necessitated that Hitler delay Barbarossa from starting in mid-May to the end of June. The extra five to six weeks the Germans would have had in the summer of 1941 could have allowed them to take Moscow, which they were reaching in late November just before the winter and Russian counteroffensive turned them back.

[Tladatsi]

what do you guys consider the turning point of WW2 in Europe. i would go with Stalingrad. the German army lost something like a quarter of its strength on the eastern front and was from then on almost always on the defensive.

There is no question it is Stalingrad. The fascists forces had been undefeated and had advanced on all fronts until Stalingrad (North Africa, Greece, Crete, Norway, the Balkans, and of course the Soviet Union). Stalingrad was not only the first major defeat for the Axis powers, it was the largest and most thorough victory of the war at the most important junction. It must be rembered that the vast bulk of the Axis ground and air forces were committed to the Eastern Front. At the begining of Operation Barbarossa (1941) the order of battle committed 118 divisions in three army groups to attack the Soviet Union. In 1941 there were 30 German divisions in western Europe (in one army group) and 4 German divisions in North Africa (with several additional Italian divisions - the Afrika Korps. This was later upgraded to an army group). German had about 250 divisions between 1941 and 1942 so a large majority of the Axis military was on the Eastern Front, making it the decisive front.

At the battle of Stalingrad, the enitre 6th Army (with allied divisions) was completely destroyed. It was the largest unit in the entire German army. At least 600,000 and as many as 800,000 solders were killed, wounded, and/or captured. More importantly it ripped a huge whole in the eastern front. The fascist drive to Stalingrad was to protect the eastern flank of Opperation Blue, the southward drive to the oil fields of the Caucuses (a critical weakness of Germany was the lack of oil), the main objective of Germen efforts of 1942. The defeat at Stalingrad forced the Axis armies back from the Caucuses (they faced being cut off there by the advance westward of the Red Army) and behind the Don. It also kept the Volga open, a vital transport corridor.

After Stalingrad, for the Axis powers, it was all retreat and defeat.

The Battle of Britain was of course quite important (especially to GB) but it was no turning point. Hitler had no real plans to invade GB, the German navy had no landing craft and their navy was insignficant. Hitler was mainly interested in reducing GB's fighting capacity and forcing an armistace.

North Africa was selected for the first area of Allied offesive operations not because of it's strategic value, which aside from the Suez Canal, because it did not posses any. Rather, it was selected because of the relataive weakness of the Allied Forces. This was the weakest link in the Axis front, 4 German divisions plus the divisions of the 1st Italian Army. American commanders wanted an immediate invasion of France, or at least Europe. However, Churchill feared it would be a disaster, inexperienced US troops and outnumbered British troops.

Stalingrad was the turning point. It is not even close.

[Bubbahotep]

Tladatsi,

I can agree with you to a point but you err in making Stalingrad the "mother of all battles" on which the fate of the entire war depended. Pretty much at the same time the Russians launched Stalingrad the Allies landed in North Africa and Rommel was defeated in Egypt at El Alamein. Those events led directly to the invasion of Italy and that led directly to the downfall of Mussolini and Italy defecting to the Allies. And that forced Germany to occupy Italy and use up a lot of its forces vainly trying to prevent the Allied invasion of Europe.

You should also remember that Stalingrad didn't completely extinguish Germany's offensive power. In the spring of 1943, immediately after the Stalingrad debacle, the Germans under Manstein recovered their position in an incredible way, to such an extent that they took the initiative from the Russians. The result was the cataclysmic Battle of Kursk. It is really from Kursk that the string of almost uninterrupted defeats began for the Germans. At Kursk Germany lost a great amount of planes and tanks only to see the Russians emerge from even greater losses with yet more reserves.

To see if Stalingrad really was as big a turning point as you suggest consider what would have happened if Germany had won that battle. Would the Soviet Union have collapsed or surrendered? No, the Russians had surrendered many cities before then and while Stalingrad was certainly tactically and strategically a very important place it wasn't the capital city nor the largest production center of the Soviet Union. What would have likely happened would have been the collapse of Soviet forces in European Russia and a gradual retreat of Russian forces behind the natural defences of the Ural Mountains. This would essentially marginalize Russia as an offensively capable force but Germany would likely not have been able to conquer it entirely. Germany was stretched quite thin by then and with an undefeated Soviet Union on the other side of the Urals would still need to maintain a large force in Russia in order to occupy the land and attempt to exploit its resources. The one advantage this would give Germany, and in favor of your conclusion, is that it would release large numbers of the Luftwaffe to be sent back to Germany to deal with the ever increasing air raids against the Reich.

Could the Allies have defeated Germany if Stalingrad was a German victory rather than a loss? Difficult to say. Certainly by that point it was simply not possible for Germany to defeat Britain. By this point events were already set in motion leading to the invasion of Italy. Would Italians have tossed out the fascists without knowing about the tremendous defeat at Stalingrad? I can't say but Italy would still almost certainly have fallen to the allies, whether by armistice or outright conquest.

In any event Stalingrad is a convenient tactical "turning point" of the war as it was the first great and spectacular German defeat. Strategically, though, I think the entry of the US formally into the war and the enormous amount of war materiel that thus flowed to all of the Allies, including Russia, was much more important ultimately than the results of a single battle.

[Tladatsi]

Bubba Is Pleased,

Of course you are correct, no single event can really count as a "turning point" in a war as large and complex as WWII, even if we are only examining the European theater. However, the question was posed to select just one. While I wil grant you that is something of an artificial and forced choice, tf just one were to be selected, to me it is hard to see how it could not be Stalingrad.

You offer the the 2nd battle at El Alamein (Oct-Nov 1942 - "Operation Lightfoot") as important a battle as was Stalingrad. Consider a simple quantitative comparison of committed forces. At El Alamein the Axis forces consisted of 90,000 solders in four divisions with 500 tanks at the end of 1,000 supply line while the Allies (really just the British 8th Army) had 250,000 soldiers and over 1,000 tanks based close to their supply base in Egypt. This battles lasted about three weeks.

Consider Stalingrad, two entire German armies (8th Army which was twice as large as any other German army and 14th Panzer Army) plus two Romanian armies (1st & 3rd), a Hungarian army (2nd) and the Italian 8th Army plus various re-enforcements for a total of over one million solders. Facing them were three Soviets fronts (Stalingrad, Southwest, and Don) with over 1.7 milllion solders. The engagement covered a front over 200 miles long. This battle lasted about five months. This battle was literaly ten times bigger than El Alamein.

Aside from the sheer size of the respective battles, consider the consequences. Rommel's four divisions where thrown back to Lybia but were still an effective force froce for until the collapse of the Vichy forces protecting Rommel's western flank. In contrast, at Stalingrad, basically an entire Army Group was obliterated, it never fought again.

North Africa was not a critical region to begin with. The Afrika Korps were created simply to defend the Italian position in North Africa. Hitler had not plans for North Africa, he was just helping out his ally Italy defend it self against the British. Technically the Afrika Korps were under Italian command. Rommel just got over ambigous in making good defense a good offence. With only four divisions on a 1,000 supply line (it took nine gallons of fuel to deliver one gallon to the tanks at the front) Rommel was never a real threat to the Suez cannal.

In contrast, Hitler desperately wanted the oil fields of Baku and the Caucuses. That was one of the main objectives the invasion of the Soviet Union. With those fields, the supply lines for fuel would have been shortened enormously and the rest of the German army would have an endless supply. The defeat at Stalingrad froced Army Group South out of the Caucuses without a major Soviet victory in the Caucuses.

The entry of the US into war cannot be underestimated. However, had the Soviet Union collapsed, surrendered, or simply signed an armistace (as they did in WW I) and given up land and oil, the Germans could have shifted over 120 divisions westward. GB and the US struggled to defeat the 30 plus divisions in France and a similar number in Italy. Double that troop strength with an endless oil supply? It would have been ugly.

Tladatsi,

I can agree with you to a point but you err in making Stalingrad the "mother of all battles" on which the fate of the entire war depended. Pretty much at the same time the Russians launched Stalingrad the Allies landed in North Africa and Rommel was defeated in Egypt at El Alamein. Those events led directly to the invasion of Italy and that led directly to the downfall of Mussolini and Italy defecting to the Allies. And that forced Germany to occupy Italy and use up a lot of its forces vainly trying to prevent the Allied invasion of Europe.

You should also remember that Stalingrad didn't completely extinguish Germany's offensive power. In the spring of 1943, immediately after the Stalingrad debacle, the Germans under Manstein recovered their position in an incredible way, to such an extent that they took the initiative from the Russians. The result was the cataclysmic Battle of Kursk. It is really from Kursk that the string of almost uninterrupted defeats began for the Germans. At Kursk Germany lost a great amount of planes and tanks only to see the Russians emerge from even greater losses with yet more reserves.

To see if Stalingrad really was as big a turning point as you suggest consider what would have happened if Germany had won that battle. Would the Soviet Union have collapsed or surrendered? No, the Russians had surrendered many cities before then and while Stalingrad was certainly tactically and strategically a very important place it wasn't the capital city nor the largest production center of the Soviet Union. What would have likely happened would have been the collapse of Soviet forces in European Russia and a gradual retreat of Russian forces behind the natural defences of the Ural Mountains. This would essentially marginalize Russia as an offensively capable force but Germany would likely not have been able to conquer it entirely. Germany was stretched quite thin by then and with an undefeated Soviet Union on the other side of the Urals would still need to maintain a large force in Russia in order to occupy the land and attempt to exploit its resources. The one advantage this would give Germany, and in favor of your conclusion, is that it would release large numbers of the Luftwaffe to be sent back to Germany to deal with the ever increasing air raids against the Reich.

Could the Allies have defeated Germany if Stalingrad was a German victory rather than a loss? Difficult to say. Certainly by that point it was simply not possible for Germany to defeat Britain. By this point events were already set in motion leading to the invasion of Italy. Would Italians have tossed out the fascists without knowing about the tremendous defeat at Stalingrad? I can't say but Italy would still almost certainly have fallen to the allies, whether by armistice or outright conquest.

In any event Stalingrad is a convenient tactical "turning point" of the war as it was the first great and spectacular German defeat. Strategically, though, I think the entry of the US formally into the war and the enormous amount of war materiel that thus flowed to all of the Allies, including Russia, was much more important ultimately than the results of a single battle.

[Lizard]

If I had to pick (and I am no expert) I would say Hitler's decision to invade the Soviet Union and have a war on two fronts was the turning point. If Germany had not had to fight the Russians (or even had them as an ally) things could have gone much differently.

[Jayhawk]

I disagree. Hitler could have taken Russia if he had started Barbarossa earlier, as he had planned. The unrest and deposing of the pro-Axis government in Yugoslavia and replacement by a pro-British government necessitated that Hitler delay Barbarossa from starting in mid-May to the end of June. The extra five to six weeks the Germans would have had in the summer of 1941 could have allowed them to take Moscow, which they were reaching in late November just before the winter and Russian counteroffensive turned them back.

This is true, except for the late muddy season that year, which would've slowed the offensive to a crawl. OKW wasn't ready to begin Barbarossa until the ground was reasonably firm. Even with the late start date of June 22, and even with foolishly tasking Army Group North to take Leningrad instead of supporting AGC on its drive to Moscow, the capital still could've been encircled had Hitler listened to Guderian and most of his other field generals.

[Justin Thyme]

While the act itself was not so much a turning point, I think Hitler's decision to open a second front prematurely (and against all existing battle plans) sealed their fate.

[The Midge]

I don't believe this is true, and I think the British army came to this conclusion after the war after conducting simulations of possible scenarios.

Even if the Luftwaffe had destroyed the RAF, any possible invasion would have been ultimately doomed to failure from the start. Any German invasion would have had to be a sort of reverse of D-Day in 1944.
Not really. Britain only had one division with which to defend herself. No tanks to speak of and most of her equipment left on the beach at Dunkirk. Have you ever seen "Dads Army?" We were literally dependent on an "army" of pensioners, butchers, school boys and bank clerks. It is a very funny commody because these people were so ill equiped to deal with real modern warfare.
ANd that was when the Allies had overwhelming firepower, air cover, artillary support and logistics. The German invasion would have had no such luxury.

Operation Sea Lion was bungled. Germany had overwelaming resourses. Britian was srambling every Spitfire and Hurrican she could build and muster and was just two days from defeat when Goring switched to bombing the East End of London. If Sea Lion had been mobilised that summer Britian would have had hardly any suppies and defences in place. The BoB gave us the time to put them in place thus ensuring germany could not have won the invasion the next year- even if they had of beaten Russia?
The Royal Navy, for a start, would have blown most of the invasion force to bits.
The navy would have been blown out of the water by the Luftwaffe just like Midway. It was actively engaged in many theatres and vulnerable to the E-boats.
I'm pretty sure the British army, after the war, studied the various scenarios and came to the same conclusion. A German invasion of Britain was utterly out of the question. Even right after Dunkirk German forces were in no position to launch any invasion. Recent replays on the strategy to defend the nation and use resistence cells indicate that Britian could only have held out for a couple of months and resistance would have been finished within a year. (This was made into a tellevision series "Britain Under the Nazis" IIRC)

If the BoB had been lost Britain would have been left with a defeated air force, little air defence against German bomber raids, cities left in tatters, and an increasingly demoralized population. Germany would have never been able to muster the resources and manpower to launch a successful invasion, not least after the USSR had been invaded. At worst Britain would have asked for peace. That is the least of the worries the Common Wealth (Those were the days when half the globe was pink)would have been without leadership and support. No one to resist Germany in Malta (we lost Cypres) and North Africa and the Middle East. Less opposition to Japan in the Far East. And the full force of Nazi Germany concentrated on Russia with anti communist sympathisers from Britain, Spain, Austria and Italy.

It is true that Britain could not have won the war without American aid. Europe would have fallen without the sacrifice of the Soviets. But I doubt they could have won without Britain. Modern Europe was and is interdependent.

[youngfogey]

I'm a revisionist - the US should have stayed out of it, the Nazis and Soviets would have destroyed each other so no Cold War afterwards, neither Germany nor Japan had plans to invade America and a deal with imperial Japan would have been no less distasteful than the business relationship with human-rights horror Communist China today.

Hitler lost the Battle of Britain by walking away from it and going with his barmy plan to invade Russia, losing there just like Napoleon so essentially I agree with the original poster.

I don't think Germany could have pulled off a reverse D-Day: it had no big surface navy and no marines/amphibious troops. Part of the same reason its military never planned an invasion of America. That and Hitler's game plan had Germany in charge of the Continent, Britain in charge of Africa and Asia and the Western Hemisphere under the United States... the latter two weren't different from the way things really were.

The turning point in the Pacific? I think the conventional view is Midway - why not?

[Tladatsi]

While the act itself was not so much a turning point, I think Hitler's decision to open a second front prematurely (and against all existing battle plans) sealed their fate.

I agree that a single turning point is a bit of a over simplication. However, what does happen is that the moment of war shifts at some point. This is what is trying to be captured in this posting. I agree with most everyone that the eastern front is where the momentum shifted and the Germans began their long retreat.

However, several commenters have identified the opening of the eastern front as the turning point. This is not correct. The German momentum forward continued for two more years. While a strategic error, it was not the turning point. I argued above that the Battle of Stalingrad was the turning point. That was the point greatest advance eastward and furthest advance from Germany. It was all retreat after that.

That is a turning point.

[Bernie]

I agree with kain....seems to me that Hitler's greed in attacking USSR and waging war on virtually all possible fronts was the single biggest error made in WWII. I've been thinking about this for some time....in case I decide to strike out for world power, I will hopefully have learned from Adolph's mistakes.

[Ben Franklin]

What about the Russian-Japanese [secret?] non-aggression pact...? Japan never would come to Germany's aid by attacking Russia in the East, and vice versa (until after the bomb strike). It's as great a sticking point as say, the Allied agreement on Germany's unconditional surrender.

[Tladatsi]

I agree with kain....seems to me that Hitler's greed in attacking USSR and waging war on virtually all possible fronts was the single biggest error made in WWII. I've been thinking about this for some time....in case I decide to strike out for world power, I will hopefully have learned from Adolph's mistakes.

Well, the OP asks not about the biggest mistakes, and it is hard to argue with that one, but with the turning point, which is different.

[djconklin]

>The manufacturing centers in the Urals (Tankograd, et al) could've been bombed by the Luftwaffe.

Really? The Urals are a long ways from Moscow. The German airforce had trouble bombing England--how would they bomb the Urals?

[rich1]

Actually I would say the turning point, would be Italy's failed invasion of Greece and subsquent rescue by Germany which, with the invasion of yugoslavia and greece delayed the German attack on Russia by 6 weeks ---------- if started on time, the germans probably would been on the outskirts of Moscow before the fall rains ---- with very limited all weather roads and mainly dirt paths-----and certainly before the snow fall -------------- a german army not equipped for the bone chillin cold of 41 (hitler didnt want to cripple the german economy by providing winter uniforms and winter miliutary supplies for the germany army.

[Tladatsi]

Actually I would say the turning point, would be Italy's failed invasion of Greece and subsquent rescue by Germany which, with the invasion of yugoslavia and greece delayed the German attack on Russia by 6 weeks ---------- if started on time, the germans probably would been on the outskirts of Moscow before the fall rains ---- with very limited all weather roads and mainly dirt paths-----and certainly before the snow fall -------------- a german army not equipped for the bone chillin cold of 41 (hitler didnt want to cripple the german economy by providing winter uniforms and winter miliutary supplies for the germany army.

It would not have made any decisive difference. Even if Hitler had gotten to Moscow before the snows, Stalin would just have evacuated Moscow (as he had actually planned to when the German army got close to Moscow) and moved the capital some place further east, beyond the Urals. Also, what actually stopped Hitler from capturing Moscow was the Siberian divisions which Stalin brought back. He would just have had to bring them back to Moscow earlier is all.

[rich1]

It would not have made any decisive difference. Even if Hitler had gotten to Moscow before the snows, Stalin would just have evacuated Moscow (as he had actually planned to when the German army got close to Moscow) and moved the capital some place further east, beyond the Urals. Also, what actually stopped Hitler from capturing Moscow was the Siberian divisions which Stalin brought back. He would just have had to bring them back to Moscow earlier is all. actually you never know, the roads would have been open for further exploits and possibly demoralizing defeats with loss of Moscow, who knows what the Russian army would have done, espically without having victories at all ------ they could have easily just fell apart plus the the time to evacuATE some areas and factories would have been lost. So an army which is being beaten everywhere and in complete retreat and just lost the capital and close to being split north and south as far as normal communication goes wouldn't just throw out a regime and attempted a truce? think about it


if you read what was happening in Moscow when the german where on the outskirts in the winter --------- start of mass hysteria? Germans wouldn't have had to fight in tanks that didnt start, machine guns and cannons that didnt fire and men freezing to death because of the cold. Also supplies would have been able to keep up better

[Tladatsi]

actually you never know, the roads would have been open for further exploits and possibly demoralizing defeats with loss of Moscow, who knows what the Russian army would have done, espically without having victories at all ------ they could have easily just fell apart plus the the time to evacuATE some areas and factories would have been lost. So an army which is being beaten everywhere and in complete retreat and just lost the capital and close to being split north and south as far as normal communication goes wouldn't just throw out a regime and attempted a truce? think about it


if you read what was happening in Moscow when the german where on the outskirts in the winter --------- start of mass hysteria? Germans wouldn't have had to fight in tanks that didnt start, machine guns and cannons that didnt fire and men freezing to death because of the cold. Also supplies would have been able to keep up better

Well yes, one does never know...however, the German army did make it to the edge of Moscow, evacuations were begun, panic occurred but did not overwhelm the city. Moveover, so what if they evacuated Moscow? Taking Moscow did not help Napoleon. Charles XII marched about Russia for years, unable to penetrate it's depths. The Soviets could have retreated 500 more miles, then what? Their industrial base and raw minerals were safely behind the Urals. The German supply lines were already dangerously long (it took 10 gallons of diesel fuel to deliver one gallon). 100,000 troops were tied down in anti-guerrilla actions behind the lines.

The reason the Germans did not take Moscow was not principally the weather, but also the Axis troops were exhausted, quite aside from the cold. They had been fighting and marching for months. If they had reached Moscow in September instead of November, it would have been dreadfully hot instead of cold.

The Germans also suffered from faulty intelligence. They concluded that the Red Army had no more reserves. In fact, Stalin was able to build up a reserve of 58 divisions during this period. This one reason they did not make a second push after the failure of Operation Typhoon. They figured they could just wait until spring since there was no worry about a counter-attack.

The arrival of the fresh and battle tested Siberian divisions ( which Stalin had been holding on the Chinese border and deployment of newly formed divisions (together over 1 million men) is what turned the tide. Stalin would simply have had to bring them into play sooner.

The USSR had all of the strategic advantages. If Stalin had not been such fool in trusting Hitler, he could have stopped the whole invasion before it reached Minsk.

[freethinker]

what do you guys consider the turning point of WW2 in Europe. i would go with Stalingrad. the German army lost something like a quarter of its strength on the eastern front and was from then on almost always on the defensive.

A turning point is a moment in history where choices can be made and history could have changed because of a particular choice. Therefore the battle of Britain was a turning point because Germany might have won if the proper strategy was used.
Operation Barbarossa cannot be called a turning point as it was a spoiling attack to pre-empt a perceived Soviet invasion threat: it was inevitable.
One of the earliest turning points I think is the decision of the Japanese to look for oil in the Pacific instead of Siberia (as mentioned before).
An even earlier turning point was the decision to appoint the drug addict Udet to organize German aircraft production. He was a war hero but completely unsuitable for the job. This led to stagnation and the wrong aircraft being produced.
Probably the last turning point was a meeting between Hitler and Otto Ambros organized by Albert Speer on Saturday, May 15 1943. Otto Ambros convinced Hitler not to use nerve gas (Tabun and Sarin) because the Allies were sure to have nerve gas too. In fact Germany had a 10 year lead in nerve gas production. There was probably 20,000 tons available, enough to devastate the Soviet forces with some left over to wipe out English cities.

[Tladatsi]

A turning point is a moment in history where choices can be made and history could have changed because of a particular choice.

All of the examples you give are good examples of decisive events in the course of the war. However, the term "Turning Point" has a somewhat different and narrower meaning. It refers to the moment of the war when the momentum and initative shift from one side to the other. From 1936 to the Battle Stalingrad the Fascist forces had consistently advanced, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, North Africa, Ethopia, France, USSR, etc.

Think of it this way, until the Battle of Stalingrad almost every battle was initiated by the Fascists. They chose the time and place of the battles and general won them. They gain their objectives in the fashion of their choosing. They had superior technology, better trained armies, and superior generalship. The Allies were reactive and defensive, had inferior technology (especially in tanks), had comparatively smaller and poorer trained armies, and poorer generalship.

All of this changes after the Battle of Stalingrad. The Axis powers ceased their advances, they began to retreat. The Red Army in the East was able to choose the time and place of battles, their armies under Zhukov were now well trained and commanded by Generals who understood mechanised warfare and had the quality and quantities of tanks to win (T-34 Type 85). Similar advances eventually came to the western front as well.

The tide was turned at Stalingrad.

[freethinker]

The tide was turned at Stalingrad.

I think you're quite right with that.

[jesusfreak]

I would have to say a major turning point in WWII is when Hitler just stoped the bombing of London. If he would have kept up the bombing a couple more days than London wouldn't have been able to rebuild enough to stop Hitler with the help of America. Also if he would have stayed allied with the Soviet Union untill the spring time when it wouldn't have been so cold in Russia and then he would of had England in the winter and then Russia in the spring and the only thing stoping him from having the world would the the U.S.

[Tladatsi]

Some of those are mistakes but they are not "turning points".

I would have to say a major turning point in WWII is when Hitler just stoped the bombing of London. If he would have kept up the bombing a couple more days than London wouldn't have been able to rebuild enough to stop Hitler with the help of America.

The Nazi terror campaign against the citizens of the UK was not effective. It did not break the morale of the UK nor did it break the Royal Air Force nor the infrastructure to support the war. Moreover, the air assault on Britain was supposed to be the opening for a combined air - sea invasion ("Operation Sealion"). However, the latter was impossible because of British naval an air superiority. The purpose of the air assault was cripple the RAF which would give the Kriegsmarine a fighting chance for an invasion (it is not clear that had they succeeded that the Royal Navy would still not have prevented the invasion). The simple fact of the matter is, Germany could have continued their attacks for weeks longer and still would have lost.

This was Hitlers first defeat but it was not the turning point in the war. The Axis forces continued to advance across the world long after this battle.

Also if he would have stayed allied with the Soviet Union untill the spring time when it wouldn't have been so cold in Russia and then he would of had England in the winter and then Russia in the spring and the only thing stoping him from having the world would the the U.S.

Germany and the USSR were never allied, they simply had a non-aggression pact, there is a huge difference.

Ultimately, it was not the weather that defeated the German army in Russia but the Soviet economy. The weather was only a problem because Germany was unable to supply the Wehrmacht adequately.

The German Army had a 5,000 km supply line which sucked up 9 liters of fuel for each liter delivered. The entire Soviet industrial base had been relocated behind the Ural where it was producing tanks (T-34 Type 76s and Type 85s) and aircraft than Germany could. Even if Moscow and Stalingrad had fallen, Germany could not pursue the war any further east. Hitler would have occupied dead, empty cities, just as Napoleon had. The Red Army would have clobbered the Wehrmacht early except that Stalin was such a fool. He refused to believe his own intelligence about the impending invasion and even when the invasion occurred he refused to believe it. He also hamstrung his own generals by stupid meddling and rigid strategy, to say nothing of his destruction of the officer corp before the war. He also threw his troops into battle without proper training, supplies, armor, or air support.

The tide turned once Stalin started listening to his own officers (most notably Georgiy Zhukov), brought back from prison other officers, revived the out-of-fashion theory of "deep operations" using armor, things changed. Most specifically at Stalingrad, here air cover was coordinated with massed armored columns, supplies and logistics were prepared, intelligence was used instead of ignored, and operations penetrated deep behind enemy lines.

The effect was devastating. Two entire Germany armies were obliterated (6th Army and 4th Panzer Army, the former was the largest German Army, twice as big as any other) and many other Axis forces were crushed. Operation Blau was completely defeated the Axis forces began their long retreat back out of the Soviet Union. The Axis forces did win battles after Stalingrad but they were defensive battles, covering their retreat. They never advanced again, anywhere.

That is the turning point.

[jesusfreak]

all i can say is wow.......

[Algesan]

Considering only Europe, the turning point is.....Hitler himself, although several of the high Nazi leaders can be pointed to as strong supporting cast. Notice how many of the posts above point to mistakes by Hitler or require actions outside of those Hitler took that appear to violate Hitler's psych makeup.

IMO, the turning point is Pearl Harbor, specifically the blunders by the Japanese immediately afterwards that prevented following up on it. For example, the begged for and ignored request to go back and hammer Pearl and the rest of Hawaii with extra air strikes. The Japanese are the weak and lack the stamina to fight the US in a war, but the more decisive the strikes in the first few months of the war, the more attention it forces to be focused on the Japanese while at the same time curtailing the US's ability to respond on the shoestring we did. Having to focus more and more of our attention and resources on the Japanese would have taken pressure off the Nazis just as they peaked and hit a wall, in large measure because of the ongoing American entry starting to take up some of the slack.

Remember, in the 1941-1943 timeframe, the very real development of the threat to literally starve out the British Isles came and was finally defeated, mainly by diversion of US escorts and merchant ships. Enough so that the Brit Imperial forces could expand their usable naval strength elsewhere (i.e. - Med and Murmansk).

[Tladatsi]

Considering only Europe, the turning point is.....Hitler himself, although several of the high Nazi leaders can be pointed to as strong supporting cast. Notice how many of the posts above point to mistakes by Hitler or require actions outside of those Hitler took that appear to violate Hitler's psych makeup.

A person is not a turning point. A turning point is where the momentum turns from one direction to another. Yes, Hitler was Germany's greatest weakness. His obsessive controlling nature paralyzed the military, generals were afraid to make decisions in the field that might make him mad. Look at the V-1 buzz bomb. Hitler used it uselessly against the civilians of London. He could have used it to devastating effect against the Operation Overlord. Can you imagine if those V-1s had crashed into troop transports or battleships? However, a person is not a turning point.

IMO, the turning point is Pearl Harbor, specifically the blunders by the Japanese immediately afterwards that prevented following up on it. For example, the begged for and ignored request to go back and hammer Pearl and the rest of Hawaii with extra air strikes. The Japanese are the weak and lack the stamina to fight the US in a war, but the more decisive the strikes in the first few months of the war, the more attention it forces to be focused on the Japanese while at the same time curtailing the US's ability to respond on the shoestring we did. Having to focus more and more of our attention and resources on the Japanese would have taken pressure off the Nazis just as they peaked and hit a wall, in large measure because of the ongoing American entry starting to take up some of the slack.

It was not the turning point in the pacific because the Japanese continued to have the initiative and momentum. They expanded rapidly, fighting and winning one battle after another. After Pearl Harbor, they conquered the Philippines and badly defeated US forces there. Later Britain's Singapore-based Asiatic Fleet, including the battleship Prince of Wales and the battle cruiser Repulse, were sunk by Japanese torpedo bombers flying from Saigon. The Japanese subsequently defeated US forces at both Guam and Wake as well as Dutch forces in Indonesia. They continued to drive east to New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. In the west they drove into Burma. The turning point in the Pacific was the victories at Midway and Guadalcanal. It was at these two points in time that the Japanese lost initiative and the momentum switched direction against the Japanese.

Remember, in the 1941-1943 timeframe, the very real development of the threat to literally starve out the British Isles came and was finally defeated, mainly by diversion of US escorts and merchant ships. Enough so that the Brit Imperial forces could expand their usable naval strength elsewhere (i.e. - Med and Murmansk).

In order to understand the European theater of operations, it must be understood that the Eastern Front was decisive. In 1942 the Axis had 225 divisions on the Eastern Front in three Army Groups, most of them German. By contrast, the Italians had only Tenth Army (which was poorly trained and supplied and had almost not tanks) in North Africa supported by the Afrika Korps with six divisions. There were more divisions in France, perhaps 25. If the USSR either collapsed or negotiated a separate peace (as they had in WW I), Hitler could have shifted most of those divisions west, to say nothing of access to the badly needed petroleum of the Caucuses. Having 100 additional divisions in France and North Africa would made defeating Germany almost impossible. Conversely, the other possibility was that the USSR would defeat Germany and liberate all Europe alone. The US and UK liked none of these outcomes. As a result, the North African, Sicilian, and Italian operations were largely driven by the need to divert Axis (really German) divisions from the Eastern Front.

It is for these and the reasons in the preceding postings that Stalingrad has to seen as the turning point in the European theater of operations.

[Paintbucket]

I would say the turning point in the Western European theater is the victory of the British in the Battle of Britain. In the Eastern European theater, the Soviet victory at Leningrad. In the Pacific theater, the American victory at Midway, although Pearl Harbor deserves an honorable mention.

[galatians5]

The first week of December 1941 when the German mechanized units froze in the Russian snow and ice. The Russians won WWII with superior manpower and a willingness to expend it. The failure of the initiative to capture Moscow was the beginning of the end.

The battle of El Alemein stopped Rommel and German momentum from threatening British oil fields and other interests in Africa and the middle east.

The failure of Hitler to invade Britain was not Gorings finest hour as it was Churchills. That was the first big failure chronologically. But not a war winner for the Allies necessarily in itself. Although a successful invasion would have been a show stopper forcing the Allies to come up with a plan to encourage Russia even more than they did, as it were.

The battle of Midway stopped Japanese momentum toward an invasion of California and made it possible to save Australia at Guadacanal.

Stalingrad left no doubt the Russians were still in it to win.

The turning point was when America entered with overpowering industrial might and military power to enable Russia at the same time Hitler stalled at the gates of Moscow.

[Country Preacher]

what do you guys consider the turning point of WW2 in Europe. i would go with Stalingrad. the German army lost something like a quarter of its strength on the eastern front and was from then on almost always on the defensive.

I'd say Battle of Britain. It's interesting reading the other posts here, and some very good points are made. The Germans, however, were counting on a terror campaign to topple England, besides the obvious tactical and strategic objectives in gaining air superiority.

The BoB was a huge assault on Hitler's ego, as he thought he had come up with the perfect plan for world domination, investing in air power and ground force mechanization. The BoB also gave encouragement to England to push for the production of an air support vehicle to escort bombers all the way to Berlin. The resulting P-51 Mustang furthered this psychological assault on Hitler's ego - As Hermann Goering said, "The day I saw Mustangs over Berlin, I knew the jig was up."

[galatians5]

The Battle of Britain just meant the war could be ended by an invasion of Germany from the west and east. One from the east and south would have ended in the same result.

Also, the Mustang was a pile of junk (he he) until the installation of a British Rolls Royce Merlin (Spitfire) engine. The P47 Thunderbolt was an All American war bird, built like a tank. It was loaded with armor and dove like a bucket of lead with a turbo charger taking up the bottom half of the air frame. The air war only shortened the war. It had little effect on the outcome in Europe. As much as I hate to say it, the Russians won the war in Europe. We won the war in the Pacific.

[Durthorin]

Personally, I always considered the P-38 to be a better fighter than the P-51 or the P-47. One of the aces who flew the P-47 once said the only evasive maneuvers you could take in it was to get up and run around the cockpit. If memory serves that lasted until the replacement of the prop with a four blade model that increased air flow over the wings.

[galatians5]

Personally, I always considered the P-38 to be a better fighter than the P-51 or the P-47. One of the aces who flew the P-47 once said the only evasive maneuvers you could take in it was to get up and run around the cockpit. If memory serves that lasted until the replacement of the prop with a four blade model that increased air flow over the wings.

I almost mentioned the forked tail devil but chose the only other single engine fighter available there in great quantity. The Mustang was the Cadillac and the Thunderbolt was the Mack truck according to one of the red tails from Tuskegee.

The P38 was ten times better, IMHO, than the Me110 and handled better by some pilots than the P51 was flown by many also. Therein lies the rub. The pilot probably makes the difference in that fight.

The Jug must have been able to dive better, IMO, with all that weight using gravity to pull it into the ground before the wings snap off or the pilot goes blind!

The P47 was definitely a gas hog. The rate of consumption was practically double or half of the other. Depending on which one you had to nurse back over the North Sea.

The bombers were still sitting ducks, regardless. It was good that many german pilots had drowned in the Channel or run out of available transportation by 1944. P51s had something to do with that of course. Along with everything else going against the Luftwaffe at the time.

The British Mosquito impresses me the most. German night fighter ground controllers told their interceptor pilots to back off whenever they detected the wooden twin engine raider leaving the area. There was no reason to waste precious fuel trying to catch up with one and all the germans knew it.

The Spitfire went up against their best pilots before the Mustang was available. The Russians also got better with their wooden (to some degree) "Yak"ovlev and Lavoichkin (spelling?) fighters.

The german aces on the eastern front wore those poor devils out, early on. The difference in sheer numbers went against them eventually.