The turning point of World War II

[Dylan2010]

WWII was fought across three continents over a span of 6 years ... the search for a single turning point is probably simplistic. Even after Kursk, Germany could still have fought the Soviets to an Armistice.

In fact, if the Germans won the Battle of the Atlantic, they could probably have done so, or even defeated the Soviets.

I would argue that if you look at a single factor that determined the outcome of WWII, it was the sheer industrial power of the USA. The sheer quantity of material produced made the major difference ... there was no theatre of the war where the United States did not make a decisive contribution ... maybe not the only decisive contribution, but a massive one nonetheless.

Agree with the US comments, once they entered there was only going to be one result. I doubt if the germans could have won the war in the Atlantic, they simply didnt have the resouces and their naval strategy was flawed and outdated.

[birthday]

That is a purely military analysis.

The second world war was an ideological conflict, instigated, fuelled and led by a small cabal of intrinsically evil politicians.

The principal culprits were Churchill,,Roosvelt & Stalin .

The turning point in the machinations of these evil men was the USA Lend lease programme signed by warmonger Roosveldt in 1941.
This programme boosted ailing USA industry,& set America on its current path of global domination.

Without American money and supplies their is absolutely no doubt but that the [B]German army would have eventually prevailed over Russian Bolshevism.

[/B
You would have liked that outcome, I presume.
By the way did you get your Polish coal yet?

[Cato]

I would argue that if you look at a single factor that determined the outcome of WWII, it was the sheer industrial power of the USA. The sheer quantity of material produced made the major difference ... there was no theatre of the war where the United States did not make a decisive contribution ... maybe not the only decisive contribution, but a massive one nonetheless.

Along those lines, this quote, attributed to Bismarck, seems appropriate; "The most significant event of the 20th century will be that the fact that the North Americans speak English."

I wonder do the Americans ever reflect on the loss of industrial capacity that they have endured and the consequences of that in the event of another Global conflict. Britain too has lost a lot of her steal producing capacity.

[Mackers]

Kursk, Stalingrad, Battle of Britain, Hitler being a rotten leader. And every man and woman that lifted a rifle or hand to fight the Nazi Fascist scum. Thanks to everyone of them.

[louis bernard]

The real turning point was when the USA entered the war. After that there could only be ever one outcome.

[The Field Marshal]

Along those lines, this quote, attributed to Bismarck, seems appropriate; "The most significant event of the 20th century will be that the fact that the North Americans speak English."

I wonder do the Americans ever reflect on the loss of industrial capacity that they have endured and the consequences of that in the event of another Global conflict. Britain too has lost a lot of her steal producing capacity.

The American loss in capacity such as it is has really only occurred over the past 1/4 century and primarily in the last 10 years due to globalisation , labour outsourcing and weak national leaders.

[despite all that the USA is still a formidable world economic and military power]

Americans are not a reflective people, if they were they would not have squandered so recklessly on needless wars the magnificent natural and human resources they have.

--

[niall78]

WWII was fought across three continents over a span of 6 years ... the search for a single turning point is probably simplistic. Even after Kursk, Germany could still have fought the Soviets to an Armistice.

In fact, if the Germans won the Battle of the Atlantic, they could probably have done so, or even defeated the Soviets.

I would argue that if you look at a single factor that determined the outcome of WWII, it was the sheer industrial power of the USA. The sheer quantity of material produced made the major difference ... there was no theatre of the war where the United States did not make a decisive contribution ... maybe not the only decisive contribution, but a massive one nonetheless.

Have to agree owedtojoy. WW2 was a production war, the countries that built most won the war. I'd also include manpower in those production figures. A person just has to look at industrial output figures to see the axis powers didn't stand a chance even the Germans qualitative advantage (and even that is overstated) was nothing compared to pure weight of numbers. Manpower was a problem for most nations. Russia was scrapping the barrel by '45, the commonwealth forces were spent, frequently canabilising units in '44-'45 to make full strength units but by '43 Germany was in deep trouble with just not enough manpower to have a chance of fielding an effective defence, let alone offence.

[Dylan2010]

Kursk, Stalingrad, Battle of Britain, Hitler being a rotten leader. And every man and woman that lifted a rifle or hand to fight the Nazi Fascist scum. Thanks to everyone of them.

I'm sure the polish were glad to see the end of the Nazi scum only to be replaced by commie scum

The Americans ended WW2 but they also essentially started it by getting involved in WW1 of which WW2 was just a continuation

[Brehon]

The meeting a yalta, was very significant because Churchill and Roosevelt persuaded Stalin to keep fighting out of Russia all the way to Berlin. Stalin was prepared to stop probably a little further than the ukrainan border and go no further, remember the huge losses they have taken. If Stalin had accepted an uneasy truce, treaty with Hitler, maybe even reparations from Hitler, the eastern army could have been move into Italy and repelled the advance there, that would have severely put a dent in the US army and public opinion in the USA.

However, probably the most significant event of the war was the commando operation to stop Hitler developing the A-bomb. After the successful operation at Telemark to destroy the heavy water facility, this meant the US was too far ahead in the Manhattan project for any other country to catch up. Therefore, with a A-bomb in back pocket, the US could have forced Germany to overthrow Hitler, retreat behind German lines and surrender. Obviously this outcome wasn't in Roosevelts mind or his administration at the time, otherwise, I'm sure they would not have asked for Stalin to continue to Berlin to take the pressure off the D-Day landings. Remember it took a couple of months for the allies to push through Normandy, if Germany had another division to push at Normandy, the allies may have had to retreat or at least spent most of '44 in Northen France

[Mackers]

I'm sure the polish were glad to see the end of the Nazi scum only to be replaced by commie scum

The Americans ended WW2 but they also essentially started it by getting involved in WW1 of which WW2 was just a continuation

A boot on your neck, is a boot on your neck.