Pivotal Point of the War

DarylH

What, in your own opinion, is the pivotal point of WWII?
In my opinion there are 2,
1.Operation Huskey. The Invasion of Sicily
2. The Battle of Britain. Defeated the Germans Morale for the first time stopped invasion of Britain.

jakedixon2004

In my opinion it was Pearl Harbor. If the Americans had minded their own business then we could be living in a completely different world.

DarylH

No I disagree it was a Major point yes but not the most pivotal. Can you explain further why in your opinion it was the most pivotal?

jakedixon2004

Well my reasoning behind this is not some Hollywood vision of America came and saved the day, it is the truth. If America had not gotten involved in North Africa then Germany could have focused its forces on Operation Barbarossa. Instead, with the Italian army unable to deal with the pressure from the Allied forces, Germany was forced to divert resources away from its campaign in Russia and some of its plans from Northern France.

jonniebgood1

Barbarossa- The opening of the eastern front and taking on the USSR was the most pivotal point of the war IMO. Given that most of the German armed forces were eventually to be destroyed by the red army this must be the most important point.

corny

Stalingrad: Wiped out 6th Army and crumbled their lines in the south. Turned the tide on the Eastern front.

Kursk: Biggest armour engagement of the war. Last throw of the dice for the Germans. Huge losses put them permanently on the defensive.

The Germans couldn't absorb the kind of losses they suffered on the Eastern front. Such was the scale of war there i don't know how anyone can pick an engagement in another theatre (Normandy, North Africa etc) as the most pivotal point.

Reekwind

Moscow '41. Had the Soviets lost here (and it was more about the destruction of the Red Army than the taking of Moscow itself) then it could well have justified Barbarossa. As it was, the German defeat effectively ended any hopes of a quick war in the East and tied Nazi Germany into a long and bitter campaign that it could not possibly win

marcsignal

Not sure if I would call it pivotal, as such, but the Battle of Britain was a serious drain on the Luftwaffe. They lost many of their best pilots and bomber crews, who were at a disadvantage either crashing or landing on enemy territory, thus taking them out of the war. They also lost a lot of aircraft that could have been put to better use in other campaigns, in their properly designated role (Ground support). It lowered the moral of the Luftwaffe.

IMO, the knock on effect became more evident as the war went on.

Mahatma coat

Milne bay would have to be up there as a Pivotal point in the War, it was the first point in the War where the Japanese were halted in their advances, everything from then out was the Japanese on a Defensive action.

had the Japanese taken PNG they only a short hop from Australia.

CerebralCortex

The minute Hitler was in charge of the armed forces. He had one of the most impressive armies in the world and squandered throughout the conflict with terrible decisions, like Blue and Zitadel.

Manic Moran

I'll go with either the defence of Moscow, or the decision by FDR to gear up for war, and start shipping materiel to the UK. If you compare the size of the US Armed Forces and military production capabilities in January 1940 to December 1941, it's astonishing. Outside of the Navy, US military might and production was a bit-player on the world stage. The entire country had less than a thousand tanks, most of which were absolutely pathetic. The Army was a core of what it should/could have been in terms of numbers, and there were few military production facilities. All those 'icons' of US WWII military power, from the M1 rifle through the M3/M4 Medium Tanks, jeeps, even the helmets instead of the British style ones, had not yet been developed when the war kicked off in Europe. Due to the decisions made by FDR before the Japanese attack, when the US was finally dragged in, it was a military powerhouse able to sustain not just itself, but its allies.

NTM

Reekwind

CerebralCortex wrote: »

The minute Hitler was in charge of the armed forces. He had one of the most impressive armies in the world and squandered throughout the conflict with terrible decisions, like Blue and Zitadel.

So that's no conquest of France then...?

CerebralCortex

Reekwind wrote: »

So that's no conquest of France then...?

Or the destruction of the British expeditionary forces a Dunkirk... ...oh wait a minute!

Fratton Fred

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'll go with either the defence of Moscow, or the decision by FDR to gear up for war, and start shipping materiel to the UK. If you compare the size of the US Armed Forces and military production capabilities in January 1940 to December 1941, it's astonishing. Outside of the Navy, US military might and production was a bit-player on the world stage. The entire country had less than a thousand tanks, most of which were absolutely pathetic. The Army was a core of what it should/could have been in terms of numbers, and there were few military production facilities. All those 'icons' of US WWII military power, from the M1 rifle through the M3/M4 Medium Tanks, jeeps, even the helmets instead of the British style ones, had not yet been developed when the war kicked off in Europe. Due to the decisions made by FDR before the Japanese attack, when the US was finally dragged in, it was a military powerhouse able to sustain not just itself, but its allies.

NTM

That's an interesting point actually.

Chamberlain refused to gear up for war because he wanted to avoid an arms race that helped spark WWI. Iirc, Hawker took it upon themselves to build Hurricanes without government funding. Without them the Battle of Britain would have been a lot different.

Reekwind

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Or the destruction of the British expeditionary forces a Dunkirk... ...oh wait a minute!

Fair enough. So we'll go with a scenario in which Hitler, for some reason, does not gain control of the German armed forces. Which means another four years of attritional warfare in northern France. Hooray!

CerebralCortex

Reekwind wrote: »

Fair enough. So we'll go with a scenario in which Hitler, for some reason, does not gain control of the German armed forces. Which means another four years of attritional warfare in northern France. Hooray!

The destruction of that force would have had huge affect on theatres in which the British and the Germans engaged each other. North Africa would have been much more manageable for the Germans.

Reekwind

All of which would be completely irrelevant if the Wehrmacht had not won the Battle of France. Had it not been for Hitler's insistence on a more daring operational plan (overruling Halder and the conservative General Staff) then the BEF would spend the next few years fighting in N France rather than N Africa

CerebralCortex

Reekwind wrote: »

All of which would be completely irrelevant if the Wehrmacht had not won the Battle of France. Had it not been for Hitler's insistence on a more daring operational plan (overruling Halder and the conservative General Staff) then the BEF would spend the next few years fighting in N France rather than N Africa

Touche.