The turning point of World War II

[toxic avenger]

After WW2, according to Liddell-Hart, the general concensus among the captured German generals and admirals, was that the war was lost on 3rd September 1939 - when Britain and France declared war.

The German military-industrial War Machine was being built up on the assumption that the major war would not be fought before 1948. As it was the Germans did not have the industrial capacity to fight a long war.

Of course, by September 1939 the Nazis' mishandling of the German economy had left the country without any foreign currency or credit so for the politicians war was the only way to avoid the collapse of their regime.

I don't think I buy it - by mid 1940 the Germans had conquered France and had Britain being slowly strangled. The British won the air battle, but the Germans could simply have waited them out. The decision to go to war with Russia before they had Britain beaten was the mistake. And even then, remember, they came within a whisper of taking Moscow in 1941.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

The declaration of war by Hitler on America was the financial/industrial turning point. Kursk was the military turning point. Stalingrad the morale turning point.

There were many little turning points too. I would argue one was the sinking of the French fleet by Churchill at Mers-el-Kebir. This act convinced Roosevelt that the British were serious about fighting to the death, and thus began lend-lease..

I think 1940 is very underrated - for sure nothing in the western Europe can compare with the scale of death and destruction in the East but there are several relatively minor events that had an disproportionate impact on the course of the war -

The Battle of Britain, the german stop order on May 24th outside Dunkirk and the Norwegian Campaign. All relate to the ability and resolve of the British to continue the war.

Several other posters have made the case for the Battle of Britain and I agree that it was certainly a turning point but I would like to make the case for the other 2.

The stop order, which lasted 2 days, allowed the bulk of the BEF to escape to fight another day. Had the BEF been destroyed at Dunkerque, Britain would have been very sparcely defended in ground forces in weeks thereafter. SE England could have been captured by a small invasion force. The returned BEF forced the germans to prepare a much larger force - requiring extra resources and time. If the germans had attempted an invasion "on the run" in June/early July they may well have succeeded. Further, the successful evacuation bolstered British morale during a particularly bleak period.

Perhaps it was fortunate that the germans won the Norwegian campaign - if their invasion had ended in defeat then Chamberlain might not have been replaced by a belligerant Churchill. Chamberlain would have been much more amenable to german peace overtures following the defeat of France.

Again, all very insignificant in material terms in comparison to the war in the East but the german refocus eastwards in 1941 was hampered by an undefeated enemy to their rear which drained resources (particularly for air and naval requirements). More importantly, thanks to continued British resistance, America did not make an accomodation with a german Europe and it became increasingly committed to war against fascism.

[J.V.STALIN]

I agree with everything you wrote bar the highlighted. "100%" of British military power? What about the vast ly superioir Royal Navy?

The 'vastly superior royal navy' was sitting in its bases. There was a recognition on both sides that the royal navy could not have stopped a German invasion attempt without the RAF - hence why the British saw the Batttle of Britain as so crucial.
Remember that operation Sealion called for a cossing in the English Channel - German U-Boats and airpower would have strangled in the cradle any Royal Navy counter measures.

[hairylemon]

As the American general said in the early eighties "quanitity has a quality all of it's own".

Actually, i believe Lenin said that in the twenties

[Warrior of Destiny]

Soviet war production was the crucial turning point. More tanks, planes and guns than anyone else.

[toxic avenger]

The 'vastly superior royal navy' was sitting in its bases. There was a recognition on both sides that the royal navy could not have stopped a German invasion attempt without the RAF - hence why the British saw the Batttle of Britain as so crucial.
Remember that operation Sealion called for a cossing in the English Channel - German U-Boats and airpower would have strangled in the cradle any Royal Navy counter measures.

That view has been challenged - it has been argued that Hitler was never that pushed about invading Britain but that if they were ever to have any hope of succeeding then they had to gain air superiority in the Channel. That doesn't mean that air superiority would have made an invasion likely - the Royal Navy was still far superior to the Kriegsmarine. Some thus argue that the Battle of Britain's importance is overstated, though it was a huge morale boost and it showed that the Nazis could be stopped.

[Schomberg]

Has to be Pearl Harbour and America entering the war. The sheer industrial might of them, the man power they had, the safe home untouched by war. Hitler wasn't all that handy at choosing allies!

[toxic avenger]

Has to be Pearl Harbour and America entering the war. The sheer industrial might of them, the man power they had, the safe home untouched by war. Hitler wasn't all that handy at choosing allies!

Even Pearl Harbor wouldn't have been decisive if Hitler hadn't been stupid enough to declare war on the Americans two days later!

[Hitch 22]

I don't think I buy it - by mid 1940 the Germans had conquered France and had Britain being slowly strangled. The British won the air battle, but the Germans could simply have waited them out. The decision to go to war with Russia before they had Britain beaten was the mistake. And even then, remember, they came within a whisper of taking Moscow in 1941.

When Stalin made the agreement with Hitler to carve up Poland between them he hoped that it would delay war by many years.
He was delighted when Hitler invaded the Low Countries and pressed on into France because he believed it would be a repeat of 1914-1918 with a long drawn out attrition. When France fell in May 1940 he was flabbergasted and Nazi forces built up on the borders of the Reich the following summer he went into total denial.
Hitler had used most of his armies to conquer France while he left the eastern borders of the Reich defended by a skeleton crew and feared a Soviet stab in the back. This convinced Hitler more than anything that he had to hit the Soviet first before they hit him.
However at the time Stalin intended to avoid war at all costs!

[Ireniall]

I think 1940 is very underrated - for sure nothing in the western Europe can compare with the scale of death and destruction in the East but there are several relatively minor events that had an disproportionate impact on the course of the war -

The Battle of Britain, the german stop order on May 24th outside Dunkirk and the Norwegian Campaign. All relate to the ability and resolve of the British to continue the war.

Several other posters have made the case for the Battle of Britain and I agree that it was certainly a turning point but I would like to make the case for the other 2.

The stop order, which lasted 2 days, allowed the bulk of the BEF to escape to fight another day. Had the BEF been destroyed at Dunkerque, Britain would have been very sparcely defended in ground forces in weeks thereafter. SE England could have been captured by a small invasion force. The returned BEF forced the germans to prepare a much larger force - requiring extra resources and time. If the germans had attempted an invasion "on the run" in June/early July they may well have succeeded. Further, the successful evacuation bolstered British morale during a particularly bleak period.

Perhaps it was fortunate that the germans won the Norwegian campaign - if their invasion had ended in defeat then Chamberlain might not have been replaced by a belligerant Churchill. Chamberlain would have been much more amenable to german peace overtures following the defeat of France.

Again, all very insignificant in material terms in comparison to the war in the East but the german refocus eastwards in 1941 was hampered by an undefeated enemy to their rear which drained resources (particularly for air and naval requirements). More importantly, thanks to continued British resistance, America did not make an accomodation with a german Europe and it became increasingly committed to war against fascism.

Interesting post Neb.You should read 'The Battle of Britain' by James Holland.He argued that the concept of Blitzkrieg wasn't fully understood by the whole German high command and that they were actually quite fortunate to have Guderian in command on the ground to take advantage of the extraordinarily inept French defence of their homeland.He had, through the whole campaign, refused to be slowed by orders from his superiors until the approach to Dunkirk by which time he had proven himself too successful and Hitlers stall orders were as much to rein him in as well as doubts about military considerations like extending supply lines-.the joys of dictatorship I suppose.Holland further reckons that the image of the Wehrmacht as a highly organised and deadly force was well overdone and goes on to argue that the ease of their take-over of France masked some serious in-built problems-an inferior main battle tank being one-which were to come back to haunt them in Russia and even Britain.In the Battle of Britain it became clear that the Nazi state hadn't given any consideration to the peculiar problems of invading an island fortress.Their air force had been set up to offer close support to highly mobile Wehrmacht units on the continent not to attack well protected airfields from across the channel.The result was that their superior fighter the BF109(then at the height of its powers) had only ten minutes combat flying over London which meant that their slow-moving lightly protected bombers were sitting ducks for the RAF Hurricanes who could land and refuel and arm in twenty minutes sometimes(Micheal O Leary would approve)