Duke Posted December 3, 2003 Posted December 3, 2003 I was having a discussion with some people from work about what the turning point in world war 2 was. It was started by an american guy saying "We saved your ass, if it weren't for us blah blah blah" Which to an extent i agree with but you must admit, the allies just about scraped through. If the nazis followed us across the channel after dunkirk then what would have happend? Would the Russians have still beaten back the nazis? If it hadn't have been for the americans, we would of had it. If it hadn't been for the russians, I don't think the nazis would have been defeated. What do you lot think the most significant point of the war was?
Glider Posted December 3, 2003 Posted December 3, 2003 The defeat of the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain and the German defeat in Lenningrad.
Duke Posted December 3, 2003 Author Posted December 3, 2003 I think old bomber harris had the right idea when he said you can win a war through bombing. And in a way the war did end with a big bang in the pacific.
VendingMenace Posted December 4, 2003 Posted December 4, 2003 yeah, lennigrad was a major hit for germany, hitler wasted alot of resources over a pile of ruble for what amounted to a issue of pride for him -- bad move. I think classically, the end germany is considered to be the opening of the eastern front. Before hitler attacked russia, he had an ally in stalin (or at least a non-agressor) however, when he attacked russia, he not only lost an ally but spread his resources quite thin -- another bad move. there were many other bad moves though. If you ask me (which i guess you kinda did) i would say that it was when Hitler stopped listening to his war advisors and started only listening to himelf. Having only one opinion (esp if it is your own) is never a good idea. And it is this arogance of Hitler's that (in my opinion) cost him the war.
newbie Posted December 4, 2003 Posted December 4, 2003 There was no real turning point for World War II. The only notable parts in my opinion are: Battle of Britain Lend-Lease Act The German Invasion of the USSR Bombing of Pearl Harbour The Battle of Midway Guadalcanal The Normandy Invasion The Battle of the Bulge Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Duke Posted December 5, 2003 Author Posted December 5, 2003 Isn't that the only time an atomic/nuclear weapon has been used? Pearl harbour was one of the best attacks ever performed in the bloody war if you ask me, wooden cased torpedos... great idea. What about africa, italy? There was some heavy fighting in Italy, market garden was bigger than D-day landings
atinymonkey Posted December 5, 2003 Posted December 5, 2003 Pretty much, it was the plan to attack Russia. Other than the UK at the time, Russia was more or less the most potent hornets nest to start prodding. Prior to that, the German forces were only engaged with the western forces in the UK. Even with the US reinforcements, it wasn't a good situation until the Axis forces were divided onto the two sides. At the time the US did not represent that much of a contribution to the war effort, not enough either way to win or lose the war. The Pacific and African conflicts were not important on a global scale. They were tactical and interesting conflicts, resulting in a great many casualties, but they were always going to be allied victories (barring humongous errors in command).
rebeldog Posted December 6, 2003 Posted December 6, 2003 People are mixing up Lenigrad with Stalingrad. Stalingad was the major defeat. P.S atinymonkey, is that picture Ivan (aah didn't do it) Dobsky from the brilliant monkey dust.
Duke Posted December 6, 2003 Author Posted December 6, 2003 Im dont know much about what happend in leningrad, i know the germans cut supplies of to the russians and lots of people starved to death but if the Germans had bypassed stalingrad like they planned, maybe the war would have been different.
rebeldog Posted December 6, 2003 Posted December 6, 2003 The war in Russia was brutal and decisive. Whilst other areas were important and sapped German strength, Russia was where most people died and where at least 2/3 of German strength was always engaged. Some military historians agree that Stalingrad was the major turning point of world war 2. It was not only a huge victory for the USSR, it was also the first real time that German propaganda could not hide the massive losses in men from the public. Others will say Kursk in mid 1943 was the decisive nail in the German coffin. The battle of Kursk was the largest tank battle in history and the German losses were irreplacable. After this Germany never went on a major offencive again in the east. All German defeats were important but without the terrible sacrifices and victories of the USSR I doubt the Normandy invasion would have taken place. An estimated 6 million Germans died in the last six months of the war, with most dying on the eastern front. If a war can be won by bombing alone why did German production increase in 1944 to its highest amount of the war and why was did the invasion of Europe take place.
Duke Posted December 6, 2003 Author Posted December 6, 2003 I think you can win a war by bombing, but its messy and boring the americans try to all the time. The second world war ended with the atomic bombs. i think its safe to say that you can win a war by bombing
atinymonkey Posted December 6, 2003 Posted December 6, 2003 rebeldog said in post #8 : P.S atinymonkey, is that picture Ivan (aah didn't do it) Dobsky from the brilliant monkey dust. It is indeed Ivan "I only said I did it so they would stop making me eat my own poo" Dobsky.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now