[hamiltonguyo]

Well we all know when ww2 was over but when did the allies win it/determine the outcome. The first critical moment was the Battle of Britain. The air battle over Britain didn't so much win the war for the allies as it did loose the war for the axis. After the battle of Britain Hitler could not win...yes he could draw mayby but not win. When Hitler invaded Russia it did not loose him the war instead I chhoose to classify it as a high risk gamble, however his fate was sealed when he failed to win in Russia before the end of the first year. The final pivitol point was Pearl Harbour. This sealed Japan's fate(even the japanese admiral knew the war could not be won) and it moved up Hitlers defeat and changed the makeup of postwar europe.

[797]

I'd have to say the german defeat in Stalingrad was a big turning point.

[xerxes]

I would say the Battles of Stalingrad and Kursk was the 1-2 punch that ended the war for the Germans.

In the Pacific it was the Battle of Midway, Followed by the Battle of Leyte Gulf that sunk the Japanese hopes.

[Motorcycleboy]

I wouldn't put so much emphasis on the Battle of Britain. Germany had effectively nuetralized Britain by 1940. Had the Americans not joined in, Britain never could have launched an invasion of France or Italy on their own.


I agree with 797 that Stalingrad was the pivotal point. After that, Germany was permanently on the defensive. Even famous German offensives after that point, like Kursk and the Ardennes were nothing more than tactical attempts to stem the onslaught they were facing.

It's debatable, but I don't think the Germans could have won after February 43 even if Britain had sued for peace and America had stayed out altogether.

[Wullu]

There are many points that could be logicaly argued as to what the real turning point was that lead to an Allied victory.
In my own view the war was far to complex and all encompassing event to be able to say that "event a" was the point at which the nazis could no longer win.
There are so many factors to consider, including the ones that never took place in a battle. Did the lend/lease program allow the commonwealth to stay in the fight and even allow them in a small way to take the fight to the nazis? How much of factor was the installation of Churchill as PM? Why did the Japanese miscalculate so badly in determining US reaction? Did the Allies ability to read virtually all of the axis mail all but guarantee the outcome? How about the fact that by 42 or so the fact that MI-5 controlled the vast majority of nazi spys in the UK?
All these points were extremely important factors when considering the conduct of the war.

[Knoss]

Well I'd have to say that the initial objective of Liberating Poland, and controling the Axis powers of Nazis Germany, facist Italy, and the USSR. I'd have to say that the objectives of the war were first obtained with the Polish elections on June 4, 1989. The real success was witht he fall of the USSR in 1991.

[Mustang1]

When was World War Two won? Good question.

Putting aside ideological defeats, territorial losses and combat statistics for now, I’d wager that the “turning points” included Hitler’s initial Norway campaign (significant Naval depletion wrecked havoc on Northern Naval operations for German), Tactical wavering in France and against the British in 1940, a strategically unsound sojourn into the Balkans, tactical wavering on Barbarossa and the subsequent strategic blunders that would follow, the inability to win arguably the war’s most important campaign – the Battle of the Atlantic – a suicidal ideological deficiency that saw the conflict as a larger philosophical struggle (a “World War” that was realized with American’s entry) and a poor allocation of resources.

I don’t think a single “event” can successfully address the question nor can the response include a cursory explanation (although, I just did ), but suffice it to say, when Hitler manufactured his war for Lebensraum in 1939, he began the long road towards defeat.

[Wullu]

All good points Mustang. There were just so many things going on simultaneously that that by itself could have been a major factor for the nazi loss. In a dictatorship the despot in charge tends to like to make all the calls. Hitler was no different and was in no way capable of it. The Allied leaders had to answer to their cabinets, governments and each other. All these things were factors in the finally outcome.
You are probably right though...the deciding day was likely 01 Sept 1939.

[BartSimpson]

This is when it was won and over:

[bootlegga]

Wullu Wullu:

There are many points that could be logicaly argued as to what the real turning point was that lead to an Allied victory.
In my own view the war was far to complex and all encompassing event to be able to say that "event a" was the point at which the nazis could no longer win.
There are so many factors to consider, including the ones that never took place in a battle. Did the lend/lease program allow the commonwealth to stay in the fight and even allow them in a small way to take the fight to the nazis? How much of factor was the installation of Churchill as PM? Why did the Japanese miscalculate so badly in determining US reaction? Did the Allies ability to read virtually all of the axis mail all but guarantee the outcome? How about the fact that by 42 or so the fact that MI-5 controlled the vast majority of nazi spys in the UK?
All these points were extremely important factors when considering the conduct of the war.

I think it has to be Stalingrad. After that, it was all downhill for the Nazis. Other factors did contribute, but the Eastern Front meat grinder was what ultimately determined who would win the war.

I agree that the lend-lease act helped the UK stay in the fight, but they were already outproducing the Germans by the Battle of Britain in almost every major weapons category. It wasn't until 1942 when Albert Speer reorganized production that German weapons factories really began turning them out.

The fact that Britain is an island saved their bacon too, because the German navy was almost totally annhilated after the Norwegian campaign in 1940. There was no way that the German Navy had any ability to launch an amphibious invasion without the complete destruction of the RAF.

Churchill, I would argue, was Britain's greatest wartime leader in the past two or three hundred years. And he had no moral qualms doing what had to be done (like bombing civilian targets).

Breaking Germany's Enigma machine was a very lucky break, but until the war was well in hand could not be used with regularity, as Churchill sacrificed Coventry to safeguard that source of intel.

As for Japan's surprise at American resolve, it probably had something to do with their own previous successes. When they crushed the Chinese in 1898 and the Russians in 1905, both sides capitulated quickly. They likely thought that the US would react in a similar way, but the US took the attack personally and fought them tooth and nail for the Pacific.

[Tricks]

It was never at one point, more a collection of defeats to him. When they lost the battle of britain, they from that point on had no chance to get into Britain. Then the US joining the war. Then being defeated at stalingrad, which also pulled troops away from france for D-day and the succesful invasion of nazi occupied normandy. I think that once they got back into france, and were able to move on to other countries, it was over.

[Mustang1]

Wullu Wullu:

All good points Mustang. There were just so many things going on simultaneously that that by itself could have been a major factor for the nazi loss. In a dictatorship the despot in charge tends to like to make all the calls. Hitler was no different and was in no way capable of it. The Allied leaders had to answer to their cabinets, governments and each other. All these things were factors in the finally outcome.
You are probably right though...the deciding day was likely 01 Sept 1939.

Good points.

I do believe that a myriad of factors contributed to the German defeat (I won’t repeat them) and chiefly among them was the Fuehrer principle – the organization, ideological fervour and strategic unpredictability that was initially a relative success for Hitler also helped contribute to his Reich’s demise at the 11th hour.

[Wullu]

I do agree that Stalingrad and Operation Barbarosa in general were major downfalls for the nazis. All I am saying is that in a war as wide spread and complex there are too many factors that affect so many other factors that to say one point is THE turning point.
The Neptune landings of Operation Overlord in Normandy was extremely important. Midway was important, Stalingrad was important. The clearing of the Scheldt Estuary by 1 Canadian Army was important. Virtually every major battle had a huge effect on the final outcome of the war. I just feel there is no way ot realy quantify a TURNING point in a war so massive and complex.

[Tricks]

You could say sicily was important in taking italy. If they had not started owning them, germany would have ad more troops at his disposal. He would not have had to help them out

[2Cdo]

Mustang I concur 100% but for slightly different reasons. As soon as Hitler invaded Poland and thought that he alone could mastermind the victory for the Reich, he was done like dinner! No offence to all the corporals out there, but that is precisely the reason why corporals are not allowed to plan operations or run armies!