What do you consider to be the turning point of the 2nd world war?

What do you consider to be the turning point of the 2nd world war?

Other urls found in this thread:

nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/72.pdf
operationbarbarossa.net/the-siberian-divisions-and-the-battle-for-moscow-in-1941-42/
www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/ww2overview1998.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Lancaster
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Blenheim
jmss.org/jmss/index.php/jmss/article/view/236/251
ww2-weapons.com/german-arms-production/
fat-yankey.livejournal.com/32078.html
angelfire.com/super/ussbs/motvehrep.html#G2)
forums.spacebattles.com/threads/comparsion-between-ammunition-expenditures-of-ussr-usa-and-germany-in-ww2.308559/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

NDH declaring war to US and UK

When frogs messed it all up horribly

It's hard to identify a discrete "turning point", especially in battle for WW2. At least on paper, the Wehrmacht was at its strongest in early 1944, having the more men and equipment than it did at any point previous.

Of course, by that time, the war was completely lost, because the various Allies had even huger buildups. The "turning point" was some sort of production aggregation, and to be honest, the trends were there from day 1; Britian and France alone out-built Italy, Germany, and Japan, and it was only the quick knocking out of France that made Europe competitive at all in the medium term. Add in the Soviets and the Americans, and it's not even close.

Hitler attacking USSR.

Stalingrad
No carriers at Pearl Harbor

When Germany failed to beat the Soviets in 1941 they were finished. In the Pacific Japan never stood a chance against America, Midway wasn't a turning point because even if Japan had won a great victory there they still had no chance, America had so much tonnage being built that Japan had no answer to.

September 3, 1939. When Hitler rejected the British ultimatum to cease invading Poland. From that point on, Nazi defeat was almost inevitable.

Essentially this.
Adolf invading USSR before he deal with UK and failing at beating USSR in 1941.
At this point both USSR or UK would not surrender and USA go full support on them.
It was beginning of the end.

This

If Hitler had conquered the USSR, he still would have probably lost the war because come 1945, the Allies would have begun nuclear attacks against Nazi-held territory. They could have dictated terms to the Nazis as they wished, since no defense against overwhelming nuclear attack would have been possible.

Normandy

>normandy

Failing to cripple Britain and either invade or sue for peace in 1940.

I love this meme

>Germans blitzkrieg everything in Europe before anyone can react
>"this is mine now"
>Britain backed into a corner, America fiddle fucking around in the dirt
>they've pretty much won and could have negotiated terms for their control of Europe at this point
>there is no way Germany can fuck this up unless they do something stupid like provoke the hyper industrialized Soviet Union which also has unlimited manpower
>*invades the Soviet Union*
>"oh gee, this is harder than we thought, maybe our allies can invade then from the East?"
>"No problem, senpai! ;)"
>*attacks pearl harbor*
>America activates it's autism and steamrolls across the world
>Stalin laughs himself to sleep at night as his waves of soldiers rape their way across europe
>Churchill rubs his grubby hands together as he uses the Americans to do his dirty work
>Hitler fucking kills himself


War was lost for sure when Germany invaded the Soviet Union, but more realistically it was lost as soon as it began.

>>they've pretty much won and could have negotiated terms for their control of Europe at this point
Are you extremely ignorant? They have not "pretty much won"; because their economy is still incredibly unstable, relying on imports from a country that they don't like and don't trust, and in any event, Britain, whom they cannot strike at decisively, has a larger war economy than they do.

Also, owing to the number of diplomatic bridges burned pre-war, they cannot in fact negotiate terms in any reasonable fashion; nobody is willing to believe a promise with Hitler's signature on it.

>Britain
>negotiating
>operation barbarossa not preemptive
>pearl harbour not preemptive

When the power brokers who control both sides decided to change the outcome.

>could have negotiated terms for their control of Europe at this point
The Brits would refuse. For one thing, the Nazis had proven that they couldn't be trusted. For another, the Brits were angry and had a history of not giving up.

This might be the dumbest post I've seen today

Lend lease

Operation Barbarossa
Germans never, and I mean never had a chance of accomplishing their goal.
The minute they crossed the border, they mobilized the entire Soviet population of 200 million people to war. Even if they take Moscow, they're still facing millions of Red Army soldiers who are equipped with weapons from factories made in Urals.
You just can't win with those odds.
Also December 7 was a turning point because it officially brought USA to war with it's entire industrial capacity with it.

There was no turning point. There was no point, ever, at which the Axis were winning the war. As soon as the war began, they were losing the war. They just managed to kill a lot of people before they were, almost inevitably (as in, it would have taken a near-miracle to save them) put down.

fbpb

Soviet union would artack Germany anyways. Barbarossa was preemtive

When Patroclus joined the fray

I love this meme

A YO, YOU BE SAYIN WE WUZ GOTHS N SHIET
Kursk

When Britain got involved.
Don't fuck with people badder and bigger than yourself.

>this is what Bong's unironically believe

With hindsight, it was Germany declaring war on the USSR.

At the time, i would say Kursk. The German generals knew they were well and truly fucked from that point.

>biggest empire in human history
>unlimited manpower
>unlimited steel, oil, rubber
>biggest navy
>bigger industrial output
Germany didn't have a hope against Britain. That's why they wanted peace in 1940

>this is what Bongs unironically believe

laugh at this brainlet.
The Nazis knew when it was, it was 1941 when they failed to reach Moscow and the Altai mountains,
The Americans knew, that's why they joined up around this time.
The English knew.
The French knew, it's when they started to actually resist.
The Italians didn't know.
Most importantly, the Nazi Generals held meetings discussing the defense of the fatherland and Hitler called it defeatism.
Yes, bingo. It was a long defeat after 1941.
Japan didn't have the oil to carry on a war.
Had they broken through to Moscow we'd learn German as a second language.
>because come 1945, the Allies would have begun nuclear attacks against Nazi-held territory
get a load of this goy.
How many fucking bombs do you think they could make?
Germany didn't fuck around with her V2s. The allies had a hail mary and hoped the japs or reds didn't call their bluff because they only had two A-bombs neither of which were easily recreated.
>nuclear
You mean atomic?

"Atomic" means nothing. It's all based on the principles of nuclear physics whether it be a plutonium implosion-style device like what was dropped on Nagasaki, or a Teller-Ulam megaton city destroying "hydrogen bomb". They're all nuclear devices.

>The Nazis knew when it was, it was 1941 when they failed to reach Moscow and the Altai mountains,
Nothing turned in 1941, it was simply a projection of earlier trends. Then, as before, they were being outbuilt by their enemies. Then, as before, they were unable to deal a decisive strike before that outbuilding eclipsed them.

>The Americans knew, that's why they joined up around this time.
You are aware that there was an attack on Pearl Harbor and Germany declared war on the U.S., yes?

>How many fucking bombs do you think they could make?
3 a month starting in October 1945. More once they started expanding production. nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/72.pdf

Dude the British alone would have won. There's no plausible scenario in which the Nazis manage to defeat them. Even without the americans they were winning the tonnage war in the Atlantic and the production war in the air. They win by attrition in every alternative war game. Germany lost the moment the British got involved.

Stalingrad

Then why did they agree to stuff like the Destroyers for Bases agreement? If the UK could've won the war by themselves there would've been zero benefit for them in getting the US involved

Are you a retard? Why would they turn down assistance?
It's not a video game.

...

>Why would they turn down assistance?
Why indeed

And yet you'd get completely anhiliated if without your american daddy. Germs wouldnt even need to invade you from sea, their superior intellect would V2 you off to abyss

Early to mid 1943. Stalingrad stopped the German advance cold and gutted the armies of most of their allies in the east, Kursk robbed the Germans of the initiative on the Eastern Front, 'Tunisgrad' plus the invasion of Italy instantly forced Germany to commit millions of men to garrisons in the Balkans/Italy/France/Scandinavia while also causing Italy's collapse (and the opening of the Mediterranean), the Soviets started planning counteroffensives, Lend-Lease began to reach the USSR in earnest (constituting most of their truck pool by this time), the Battle of the Atlantic started turning, and the air campaign greatly intensified, stopping the German production upswing in its tracks and wreaking horrendous damage on the Luftwaffe.

December 7th, 1941. Japan attacks the USA.
Germans and Japs should have coordinated a double attack on the soviet union.

In late 1941 Stalin had no choice but to reinforce moscow with 16 siberian divisions who were keeping a watch on the manchurian border for japs, Had japan attacked either siberia been in japanese hands or moscow under german hands, both would have been devastating to the soviet union.

...

Why do you repeat nonsense myths?
operationbarbarossa.net/the-siberian-divisions-and-the-battle-for-moscow-in-1941-42/

>'40, aka before the US got involved, Germany has twice the bombload of the allies
>only turns in '41, aka when the big boys got into the game
Hmmm...

Are you overlooking the development and deployment of 4 engined bombers by the UK because you're stupid and don't know about them, or because you do know about them and you're deliberately lying?

>Americans drop more bombs
>Americans destroy more German aircraft
>Speer specifically credits the Americans with having the most effective bombing strategy
>Brits and Canadians still somehow lose more planes and men
*hmmm intensifies*

>Britain drops 1.3 million tons of bombs
>Germany drops about 75,000 tons
>GERMANY WOULD HAVE BOMBED BRITAIN INTO SUBMISSION GUISE!

The American involvement is irrelevant for these purposes. Britain alone was ahead of Germany in the air game.

>Speer specifically credits the Americans with having the most effective bombing strategy
This right here. While Bomber Harris was off on his autistic little crusade against the civilian populace the USAF was actually bombing targets that mattered.

Convenient how that chart doesn't show the amount of "British" bombs and airplanes that they'd received through lend-lease

>Author of that book has less than 50 followers on twitter and not significant enough to have a wikipedia page.

Truly a world renouned historian

It doesn't matter. Germany dropped around 75,000 tons of bombs on Britain. That's nothing. Germany absorbed about 36 times that volume without her morale breaking or the wholesale destruction of her war economy. The idea that Germany can win a war in the air, even against Britain alone, is absurd, especially since Britian has a much larger pre-war economy than anything Germany can access.

www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/ww2overview1998.pdf

Well then by all means, please show me where you're drawing support for your claim that there were "16 siberian divisions" that were reinforcing Moscow that were previously on the Manchurian border with the Japanese.

And while not directly related to your claim, please show how these alleged 16 siberian divisions were the critical factor and not the 90+ other divisions that were engaged in the battle of Moscow.

Then why did the war in the air only really turn in 1942/42? Why did they need additional destroyers? Why did they agree to loan all that american equipment loading further debt onto their already strained economy? Surely all that wasn't needed as they totally could've done it all by themsleves?

>Then why did the war in the air only really turn in 1942/42
Because you got things like this

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Lancaster
Instead of this
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Blenheim
Doing the bombing.

>Why did they need additional destroyers?
Because they had a huge amount of area they needed to patrol by sea. Nonetheless, the convoy war was nowhere near crippling the British at any point. jmss.org/jmss/index.php/jmss/article/view/236/251

>Why did they agree to loan all that american equipment loading further debt onto their already strained economy?
Why did Nazi Germany go even worse into debt to finance her own military expansion? Debt is a problem for later. War is a problem for now.

>Surely all that wasn't needed as they totally could've done it all by themsleves?
Because it's cheaper and easier to build as big of a coalition as you can instead of trying to go it alone.

Truly /ourguy/

The battle of Trafalgar

>Japan invades Soviet
>Not enough civilization to make a spearhead for a revere invasion
>Russia is too big
>The fucking Russian sea can't be sailed due ice most of the year
This is reality. Japan sailing north of Russia is unlikely to accomplish significant things, but hey: Its free mongol land if they really did it.
Basically Germany lost WW2 when Barbarossa turned into a shitty land invasion of Soviet. Plus that it had to be delayed a month, due harsh winter spring.
Japan could have salvaged it on their end by not attacking USA, and eventually stomping the Brits in a post WW2 asian war. Which doesn't help Germany.

So Sub blockage of England isn't effective enough to cripple it, merely restructures Englands economy.
Russia is to hard to march in on
Japan could just restructure its Economy, and Rename itself into Sun Asia or something. And ignore USA.

Meme answer: when Rosenfeld and the commies in the US decided to start Lend-Lease

Real answer: when the Chetniks decided to go full Heil Hitler. Serbs haven't ever won a war against anybody who wasn't a Greek. Well okay they had a long spree of wins when they were fighting as Ottoman vassals, including against other Christians, but that doesn't count

A turning point implies that there was a chance that Germany and Japan could have won, which was then ruled out. Since it was never possible for the axis to win, there was no turning point

Japan attacking US and not Russia

put both Jap and germany on two fronts

there was no turning point, they were doomed from the start

The moment Hitler had a brain fart and declared war on the United States. His previous massive blunders maybe could have been mitigated by the sheer power of the Wehrmacht. Inviting Uncle Sam into the fray sealed his fate though.
The Japs were about equally as stupid by doing the same thing, despite Yamamoto's dire warnings and reservations.
Moral of the story: let sleeping giants lie.

September 2nd, 1939, where Hitler failed to agree to the Allied ultimatum to withdraw from Poland
The destruction of Nazi Germany was inevitable from that point onwards, the only question was how many people and how much time it would take to do it

>Nah its fine bro dont help we got Germany in the 1v1 watch this

The day Hitler was born then rejected from art school.

So this is the infamous NA-Education.
Mingboggling.

Not finishing them off at Dunkirk.

Not him, but user this is the guy that didn't know Soviet count damaged but repairable tank as loses and think the Soviet have 88k tanks in its inventory and lost 56k per year. He also say that T34 get hot 23 times by AT guns in early war indicate that the crew are so bad they just sit there and get shot, while in truth the cases where these tanks are sitting duck is because they were immobilized in some way(detrack, stuck in mud)
There are many better historians to prove your point but you went and choose that retard

>Had they broken through to Moscow we'd learn German as a second language.
No. The Germans would never have been able to take Moscow in the first place, and even if they did the Soviet resistance would still be way too big and they would be pushed back. Combine that with the fact that they would have never been able to defeat the British and their eastern ally, Japan, would have been defeated shortly later by the USA even if they didn't declare war on the USA, and Germany couldn't possibly win.

damn brits are really the most delusional people on this board

When it was declared; Germany lost at the outset. They were never going to take Britian, never going to survive a two front war with the USSR, never going to have the world resources of the Allies, and already had all the luck in the world in the inital stages of the war against France and the USSR.

hitler deciding not to push for Moscow in the first campaign

>Leaving the entire Ukrainian part of the Red Army to reorganize on your overextended flank
But at least we have Moscow!

Soooo Italy contributed nothing? not even for the defeat?

They wouldn't get Moscow either; the entire reason Taifun was possible was due to the Soviets making a foolish counteroffensive when they saw Heersgruppe Mitte divert southwards and getting half their men killed in the sector between Smolensk and Moscow.

From 'Your Negroid and Indian Behavior', Carl Jung, 1930.

>"I know the mother-nations of North America pretty well, but I would be completely at a loss to explain, if I relied solely on the theory of heredity, how the Americans descended from them acquired their striking peculiarities. One might suppose that some of them were the product of the old pioneer and colonist attitude. [...] There is a much better hypothesis to explain the peculiarities of the American temperament. It is the fact that the States are pervaded by the Negro... . Some States are particularly black, a fact that may astonish the naive European, who thinks of America as a white nation."

>The emotional way an American expresses himself, especially the way he laughs, can best be studied in the illustrated supplements of the American papers; the inimitable Teddy Roosevelt laugh is found in its primordial form in the American Negro. The peculiar walk with loose joints, or the swinging of the hips so frequently observed in Americans, also comes from the Negro. (Note 3) American music draws its main inspiration from the Negro, and so does the dance. The expression of religious feeling, the revival meetings, the Holy Rollers and other abnormalities are strongly influenced by the Negro. The vivacity of the average American, which shows itself not only at baseball games but quite particularly in his extraordinary love of talking – the ceaseless gabble of American papers is an eloquent example of this – is scarcely to be derived from his Germanic forefathers, but is far more like the chattering of a Negro village. The almost total lack of privacy and the all-devouring mass sociability remind one of primitive life in open huts, where there is complete identity with all members of the tribe"

>barbarossa
>preemptive
t. suvorov

>You just can't win with those odds.

>Primary resource production is the only thing that matters!

When you come up with a way to fight a war by throwing coal at the enemy, let me know. In the meantime, you might want to consider the ability to turn things like iron, coal, and steel into actual military hardware might be something you should take into account, which is why Soviet production of actual arms hugely eclipsed Germany's.

>which is why Soviet production of actual arms hugely eclipsed Germany's.
It didn't. German usage of fuel and ammunition dwarfed that of the Soviets. As did their shipbuilding and motor vehicle production. And their industrial manpower and their GDP. Comparing AFV and aircraft production, as these discussions tend to do, is pure brainlet because these two areas are a tiny fraction of overall armaments production.

>It didn't.
>brings up things that aren't arms

>It didn't.
Retard. Snippet comes from this.www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/ww2overview1998.pdf

>German usage of fuel and ammunition dwarfed that of the Soviets.
For Barbarossa, yes. Not for the whole war.

>As did their shipbuilding
Irrelevant in a land war.

>motor vehicle production
Are you on crack? No they didn't.

> Comparing AFV and aircraft production, as these discussions tend to do, is pure brainlet because these two areas are a tiny fraction of overall armaments production.
Who is comparing AFV and aircraft production? The Soviets outbuilt the Germans in a huge gamut of things from ammunition to small arms to machine guns to artillery to boots to food to pretty much everything.

Failure of the Germans to capture Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad. So basically declaring war on the U.S.S.R. was the turning point. Also failure of Citadel.

So is it fair to say that the oil embargo was basically the turning point for Japan?

Hitler breaking the neutrality pact with the Soviet Union

Really it was invading China, because that was the catalyst for them to lose their oil supply.

Hitler would never have been able to defeat the UK though, so really it was more like when he declared war on Poland.

Even if Germany COULD achieve parity with industrial production, they had no manpower. In 1944 they built something like 80,000 aircraft but had barely any trained pilots left

Agree with the rest of the post but did the Soviets really outproduce the Germans in motor vehicle production? Maybe it depends on how you classify it but in terms of trucks I recall the Soviets producing something like 180-120 thousand trucks throughout the entire war, and the Germans twice that number, since the Soviets could rely on lend leased trucks.

It certainly didn't help that both them and Japan used their best pilots in the combat role instead of making them instructors

they cut a lot of corners to build that many, and they were also compromised by low quality Av gas.

Kursk.

Actually, he is right on that point, I misremembered my data:

Germany produced just under 350,000 trucks

ww2-weapons.com/german-arms-production/

Soviet truck production

fat-yankey.livejournal.com/32078.html was about 205,000 of new vehicles. What I was misremembering is that over the war they had appropriated some 221,000 trucks from civilian use over the course of the war, which brings the total of domestic trucks acquired by the Red army above and beyond what the Reich produced even before you get to Lend-Lease. However, that action was only possible because of an enormously larger civilian motor pool pre-war, which itself can point to a greater motor vehicle productive capacity.

I don't know the absolute numbers on motor vehicle allocations in Germany during the war but the USSBS (angelfire.com/super/ussbs/motvehrep.html#G2) at least shows large movement towards the military as the war progressed. As for the pre-war motor vehicle pool, I doubt the Soviets had an enormously larger one. I have a table showing that while Germany was still a very unmotorized country compared to the US, Britain, France, and other European countries in 1939, they still had a motor pool twice the size of the Soviets, which was calculated with their entire production from 1928-39.

Barbarossa

Germany was doomed after June 22nd 1941 in some form or another

>For Barbarossa, yes. Not for the whole war.
You're wrong here.
forums.spacebattles.com/threads/comparsion-between-ammunition-expenditures-of-ussr-usa-and-germany-in-ww2.308559/