I know this is going to sound dumb, but what do you think was 'the' turning point in WWII...

I know this is going to sound dumb, but what do you think was 'the' turning point in WWII? I always hear people yammer on about Stalingrad, but what about El Alamein? Or Kursk? Is there a single point that could be considered 'the' turning point for the Allies?

It was all downhill for the Axis after the Blitzkrieg ended.

They never had a chance at winning, hitler lost when he declared war.

>Is there a single point that could be considered 'the' turning point for the Allies?

No. The Allies had overwhelmingly more manpower and industry to throw around than the Axis. The 'turning point' was some arbitrary point in time when they built up enough guns and planes and tanks and ammunition and other shit to be in the advantage, not any particular battle.

From the German perspective, most likely Stalingrad because they didn't advance past the Volga.

This could also reasonably be considered the turning point for the allies as well, at least on the Eastern front.

Clearly, once the Western Allies pushed them out of Africa, Sicily, and most of Italy, the Germans had to have realized that they were losing on all fronts and the long-awaited invasion of France (DDAY) hadn't even happened yet.

This.

You could pick June 22nd or December 7th of 1941 if you wanted to be fancy about it.

Barbarossa

Germany was doomed from day 1, success as defined by Hitler was the eradication of the Russian people. Germany was not capable of doing that so they were just going to lose slowly.

>the turning point
The day war were declared.

>the second turning point
The day war were declared by the Soviet Union

>Turning point three: This time it's personal
The day war were declared by the USA

on Japan, The US never declared war on Germany, Hitler made that call....what a dumbass.

This and pretty much the rest of the thread

>Germany did not have the resources to keep the war up, especially compared to the US and Soviet Union
>Monstrously underestimated the size of the royal air force during the battle of britain
>operation Barbarossa and the entire eastern fronts entire success lied in shattering the soviet army
>after that they didn't have the logistics to handle the soviet union when it finally regrouped
>>>>>>Italy as an ally

No idea why wehraboos say Germany had a chance. Because they managed to win against a economically crippled and politically fucked France?

All these plebeians.

France had the best army on paper in 1940. The real issue wasn't the size of hte army or the industrial output. It was a matter of strategy.

If Germany could get to Moscow by winter they win.

Sadly for uncle 'dolf the perfidious Albion staged a coup in yugoslavia which threatened to be a landing area to snatch the vital Romanian oil feilds. Hitler wasn't willing to risk trust with the yugoslavs and so he delayed barbarossa from May to June.

Ironically the winter came November 15th and had they arrived a month earlier they would have had 30 days of unfrozen ground and 30 days of armor advantage.

Instead the tanks got stuck and the rest is history.

This is Manstein's turning point anyway.

>If Germany could get to Moscow by winter they win.

>If Germany could get to Moscow by winter they win.
Even if the Soviets surrendered with the capture of Moscow (discounting all the munitions factories they moved to the Urals) the United States still would develop the Atomic bomb. Britain still remains unconquered, and has complete control of the seas. There are still literally millions of partisans in nazi occupied lands. Germany still only has a population of 70 million.

If Hitler didn't declare war on USA and if he didn't bomb civilian british cities (they would have signed white peace if he had just keept to bomb strategic areas instead of civilians) he could have won.

>Italy as an ally
>expecting to win
> ever
It's like Adolf wanted to lose, honestly.

USA was already fighting an undeclared naval war with Germany before the declaration. FDR would've just declared in a month if Hitler didn't. Hitler would have had to keep Japan from bombing Pearl Harbor.

Bringing America into the war. If Japan attacked the USSR instead of America, the Axis might have had a chance, but fighting Britain AND China AND the Soviet Union AND America was a fool's errand.

What was the turning point in the pacific theatre?

Midway?

I'd argue as soon as the first shot was fired in Pearl Harbor. Japan was nowhere near prepared to take on America

I don't really think can say there was a single point in World War Two where the tide suddenly turned. There were multiple theatres across the world and each one had a significant impact that led to the axis defeat. Midway, Pearl Harbor, Stalingrad, the entire eastern front as a whole. You also have to take into account that even though Japan and Germany were allies, they were so distant and had so little real cooperation that the pacific and European theatres may as well have been two different wars, and by that logic, it's impossible to say there could be a true, single point in time during the war that marked the eventual defeat of the Axis Powers and victory of the Allied Powers.

At the battle of Stalingrad the Russians were able to get the upper hand over the Germans and their allies and at Kursk the Germans failed to take the initiative again.

You know, I always wondered what would've happened if Japan invaded Siberia. Would Stalin just rage quit? Japan probably would've just gotten bogged down in the wilderness though. A major land war doesn't seem like something the Japanese Army would've been the best at.

Japan had fought against the Soviets earlier with mixed results (check out Kalkyn Gol), so I'm guessing Japan would have performed well against a split Red Army.

When Pearl Harbor happened, German troops were literally in the suburbs of Moscow. My guess is that the Soviets would have had to retreat into central/northern Asia.

There were 70 or so experienced Siberian divisions that Stalin was able to re-route Westward to face the Germans after America entered the war and engaged Japan

They wouldn't perform well because they weren't fit to fight a mechanised enemy. Just look at the last battles in Manchuria: Japanese forces never surrendered that easily and in such large numbers.