Staredit Network

When the war was at rage, Adolf Hitler sent his german/austrian soldiers into 6 countries, and each of them proved to be a victory. When the time came, adolf hitler knew he was almost unstoppable. However, when hitler decided not to attack west or south and wanted to go to fight in russia, that was the turning point of the war. His commanding officers had explained to him that it would be a terrible idea to do that especially when it is winter. Adolf Hitler denied what they had said and sent in his nazis to overtake Russia, which proved to a total failure. That was the point in which the nazis knew they could lose.

And... What is the point of your topic?

There's no point in posting this, your writing and logic are of third grade level, and you're wrong anyway. September 7th, 1940 was the day that the Third Reich lost World War II, because on that day, the Luftwaffe 'strategy' was shifted from direct assaults on airfields and fighter production plants to large-scale raids, on London in particular. That shift in the air war allowed the RAF to regain its footing, and eventually gain air supremacy.

Arbitary, you can't say which day became the beginning of the end for Hitler, becawse it's history now & you don't know what WOULD HAVE HAPPENED. i can say that the day when Third Reich lost the war was when Hitler decided to moove his army group to other direction, & i think that was the biggest mistake in the war. somebody else may say something different. you can't say what was the beginnig of the end simply becawse it's history.

we all know only one thing - all those mistakes of germans AND/OR correct mooves of ally's led to germany's defeat.

I'm basing this on what did happen, not what "would have happened". Considering that the RAF was nearly finished when the air campaign changed to bombing, the reprieve given by that change allowed the RAF time to recover. It's almost certain that had the Luftwaffe continued its measured eradication of the air force, the British people, and the Royal Navy, would have been completely vulnerable.

Also, "when Hitler decided to moove his army group to other direction," can describe any part of the war between 1941 and 1945, so that isn't really saying anything.

That's kind of down to historical interpretation, Arbitrary. I agree that Marine's post wasn't exactly well-constructed, but you could say that Hitler simply became too ambitious with Operation Barbarossa and he was doomed from that point. His insistence on maintaining an offensive during winter was also a turning point.

In fact, I'll list as many turning points as I can, and categorise them.

Operation Sealion
- Failure of Luftwaffe to establish aerial supremacy over Southern Britain, partly due to a bad tactical decision in going for terror-bombing rather than installation strikes
- Destruction of Vichy French fleet at Oran
- Defeat of the Italian Navy at Taranto

This combination of factors led to Sealion becoming unworkable. The British naval and aerial supremacy, and a lack of dedicated German invasion barges, postponed the operation indefinitely. To try and put an invasion force across the Channel would be suicidal.

Operation Barbarossa/Eastern Front
- Hitler's insistence on attacking, rather than defending, through winter
- The relief of the sieges of Leningrad and Moscow
- The disaster at Stalingrad
- The Battle of Kursk

Hitler's constant meddling in the chain of command on the Eastern Front made sure that after the intial victories won against a surprised and chaotic Soviet army, the German Army did not fight as an effective force, but as the play-thing of a poor but also stubborn tactician. The Germans failed to win a quick victory and were eventually ground down by overwhelming numbers of Soviet soldiers who quickly learnt how best to damage them.

Western Front
- The entrance of the USA into the war
- D-Day
- The failure of the Ardennes Offensive

The massive manpower, manufacturing capability and superior equipment of the USA gave the Allies some teeth with which to bite a chunk out of Occupied France on D-Day. Previously, they simply did not have forces large enough to mount a full-scale invasion. D-Day came as a surprise to the Germans and was important in that it opened up a second front. By the time of the last-gasp Ardennes Offensive, Germany was already on its knees and wasted most of its remaining armoured divisions in this desperate effort to drive the Aliies back. After its failure, the Western Front all but collapsed.

The Mediterranean
- Defeat of the Italian Navy at Taranto
- Cutting off of Axis supplies to North Africa
- Operation Torch
- Rommel's defeat to Montgomery at El Alamein
- Allied invasion of Sicily

British naval supremacy in the Mediterranean was assured with the sinking of half of Italy's battleships at Taranto by aircraft launched by the British carrier, HMS Illustrious. This allowed the British to choke off vital supplies to Rommel's Afrika Korps, which was defeated decisively at El Alamein. This marked the end of the Axis in North Africa. The invasion of Sicily caused the Italian surrender and forced Germany to send vital divisions to protect the so-called 'soft underbelly of Europe.'

I haven't mentioned the Pacific Theatre because I don't know enough about it, but I'd say that Midway and the atomic bombs were pretty important turning points.

The atomic bomb was the end, not the turning point.

Barbarossa was certainly a huge miscalculation, but my point here is that losing the Battle of Britain ultimately doomed Germany to failure, because Britain later served as a springboard for the main western invasion. Taking that into account, Barbarossa could be said to have simply exacerbated and accelerated the German decline. Stalingrad and Kursk were much larger disasters both materially and in loss of manpower, but those were just new holes in a sinking ship by then.

On the other hand, you could argue that had Germany not mismanaged the campaign in Russia, and forced the Soviets to surrender (however unlikely that might seem), then they could have moved huge numbers of divisions to any possible invasion beaches and the Allies would have had to sign some sort of bitter peace. Also, if the Japanese had not bombed Pearl Harbour, and perhaps more importantly, Japan had not signed the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy, then the USA might never have joined the war, at least not in Europe.

Im surprised no one has brought up the energy factor. Read more into why Germany invaded Russia and you will see my point.

Oil is the blood of war, that's why they had to invade USSR, that's true.

i think there was no "turning point", all factors together led to defeat of germany.

look at it the other way Arbitary...

SCENARIO 1:

the british air force was defeated & germany invaded England, forcing it to capitulate. the german air forces, that are now free to do other things are sent to russia, leading to defeat of russians in kursk battle (for example), leading to defeat of Russia.

SCENARIO 2:

british air force was defeated & germany tried to invade England, but it turned out a failure & germany lost a lot of military resources trying. this led to defeat of germany.

you see, you can't say for sure, that if the germans defeated the english air force, that it would lead to defeat of allys in the end, BECAWSE YOU DON't KNOW WHAT WOULD HAPPEN.

it's like saying, if i hadn't gone to school today, i wouldn't get that F on my homework that i didn't do. maybe they wouldn't have checked the homework today & will check it tomorrow & you don't know about it & go to school tomorrow & stil get that F.

Fellas, i spoke of the truth. If hitler had not gone against what his other superiros thought, and didn't attack Russia in the WINTER where his troops wouldn't be prepared, he could have won the war. But no, he was crazy so now we still hold the german flag high.

You can't say its the truth, as Arb already stated simply because you do not know that was it, maybe it was what Arb said. Its impossible to prove it,

No offence, but that made no sense. It also showed that you hadn't read the rest of the topic.

(That was directed at Mp)Marine)

You have no idea what you're talking about, so be quiet.

The atomic bomb did not END the war you twit. If It ENDED the war, the Nazis would have quit, too.

You need to think before you type.

It helps.

The bombs were dropped after Germany had surrendered I believe.

Germany surrendered in May while the bombs were dropped in August

lol think before you type

Blarnahuramarinar.

At least I put thought into my previous post. Just was wrong about facts.

Blow me.

The war was lsot the day Hitler appointed himself Commander in Chief, during the battle of Stalingrad, and his ambition got the best of him.

German field commanders were doing exceptionally well, they had pushed the Soviets until their backs were at Moscow, they had the 3 major Soviet cities under siege, Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow. There were 3 Army Groups attacking the Soviets until the point of near collapse.

Hitler made 1 mistake.

Army Group North was attacking Leningrad(St.Petersburg), Army Group Centre had Moscow and Army Group South had it's objectives on Stalingrad and the Crimean Peninsula. The bulk of the Panzer divisions were stationed in Army Group South A, attacking Stalingrad where he directed them to Moscow, and then re-directed them back to Stalingrad, therefore, those tanks weren't doing anything for 2 weeks, which lead to the defeat of Army Group South. Army Group Centre had to retreat because it was outflanked and then Army Group North no longer had support, to it too, had to withdraw.

Turning point of the war

-Battle of Stalingrad*. Germanys lost 100 000 soldiers, their first MAJOR loss in the war
-Rommel's loss in Africa to Montgomery.
-The loss of Dieppe Beach, France.(Rommel predicted that if they lost the beach they lost the war, and thats exactly what happened)
-Hitlers idoicy in Military Strategy.
-United States of America entering the war.(Truthfully the USA had the brightest generals during the war, my proof for that is the fact that they were surpreme commanders of British, Canadian, and their own troops.


Unfortunate End

-Hitler forcing General Rommel to commit suside. I felt that when Rommel died it ended any chance of the germans pulling it togeather, though I doubt it would have changed anything anyway.

* means fixed

Germany lost when they attacked Russia. Stalin would have never attacked Hitler in a million years, have marched through Russia all the way to Moscow without firing a shot and Stalin would have welcomed them with open arms.

The war in Russia failed mainly because Hitlers forces were attacking a huge front spanning several hundred miles with no real goal except for kill enemies and capture cities. What they should have done was ignore Leningrad and go all for Stalingrad. After Stalingrad fell, the Wehrmacht would have a clear shot for the oil fields to the south. If they took the oil fields, Russia would not have been able to produce the army and munitions it did in the war.

If they were after oil, they should have gone to the Middle East. Look how well the Afrika Korps did against so many allies.

I agree. Operation Barbarossa should have been planned for a different time of the year. Half of both the northern and middle Wehrmacht army groups on the Eastern Front should have gone to reinforce Stalingrad. Instead, Germany lost pretty much its entire Sixth Army in Stalingrad. However, with more troops, they could have opened up a direct land route to the Middle East and the rich oil fields there. Russia should have lost by all means, but because Hitler focused on taking all of Russia at once, the Russians were able to outflank, as has been stated before. All in all, the vast majority of Wehrmacht losses occurred on the Eastern Front. Also, if Hitler had ordered an attack upon Dunkirk before Operation Dynamo, Britain may have made peace with Germany or even surrendered. Let's face it though, without oil, there would be little to no armor for Russia. Without armor, it wouldn't matter how large the Red Army was. As it stands, Russia is estimated to have lost anywhere between 20 - 27 million soldiers, citizens, etc. during the war. Compare that to Germany's relatively small 3 million in losses or the United States' 300,000 casualties.

@ Stalingrad:
And you call me and Kellimus Conspiracy Theorists

Isn't there a war going on there?

Sorry Euro. Check the topic before you post! This is about World War II, not the current American-Iraqi conflict or the clash of Israel with its Arabic neighbors.

Edit: In the Middle-East, there was a relatively small British force allied with a few volunteer Israeli fighter battalions. There was virtually no Nazi presence there, as Hitler was, may we say... preoccupied? with Northern Africa and the Eastern Front at the time. In fact, the few planes that the Luftwaffe spared for the Middle-East were recalled. The Middle-East saw little to no action whatsoever during World War II.

On the contrary Felagund, there was much Nazi involvement in the Middle East. The Germans seeing much tension in the British occupied territories sought to get the Arabs to take up arms and rebel. Remember Israel (Jewish State?) The Germans/Arabs despised the Jews and they were acting to "expel" the jews from their lands. This is where Germany thought by sending all the Jews into a single place, it would be much easier to eradicate the entire race.

The Middle East did see action (because it provided a potential route to attack Russia and British controlled territories and it also provided much needed resources for the Soviet war machine) and the Arabs did recieve direct aid from the German Luftwaffe.

hitler got stupid and gave weapons to newbs instead of veterans...