Why do we not yet have a complete history of WW2?

I know this statement of Hitler (not one of his bests):the fact is that he did not get the oil of the Caucasus,and that he did not finish the war .He did not need the oil of the Caucasus,and,if he conquered the Caucasus,he would have not one gallon of oil .

The fall of Stalingrad would give Hitler not the oil of the Caucasus,nor would it deprive the SU of the oil of the Caucasus .

The theory of the Turning Points is an old discredited invention from journalists and fiction writers.

 

World English Dictionary

turning point — n
1. a moment when the course of events is changed: the turning point of his career
2. a point at which there is a change in direction or motion

Really? By whom? What did this "theory" of turning points claim, and how was it discredited?

 

1) There can be only one turning point,because the second would nullify the results of the first

2) There were NO turning points in WWII,as there were no turning points in WWI,because these wars were conflicts between industrial giants,which could never be decided in one battle .

The theory of the turning points is saying that there were battles which turned the tide of war in favor of the allies: this is nonsens: if the Battle of Britain was a turning pointStalingrad could not be a turning point,unless between the Battle of Britain and Stalingrad,there was another turning point,this time in favor of the Germans .It is not so that on day X,the Germans were winning,and on day X1 the Germans were losing :those who are claiming this have a totally wrong idea of war : Napoleon won a lot of battles but ended at St Helena .Wars are not decided by battles.

3) Whatever: I challenge everyone to produce a turning point in WWII = a moment when,before the battle,the Germans were winning WWII,and after the battle,they were losing WWII.

Let's take PH : no one will deny the importance of PH,but,it is not so that on 6 december 1941,the Germans were winning the war,and on 8 december 1941,the Germans were losing the war .7 december was not the day where the outcome of WWII was changed,was decided .

 

If battles dont affect anything then why are they fought.

I see what you are saying. Its not like chess (a battle) its about how fast you can replace those chess pieces (case and point lopsided casualty numbers with Germans and Russians). But still, you win your battles until your in Berlin and war over. Battles are just walls. Certain number of walls set up for each county, some bigger then others. You break through the walls to get to the center. Which ever country is better at putting up new walls faster and stronger generically wins (something tied to their industry, tech and population). You may not win every battle, but majority wise is tied to your tech and industry. I can dig that logic.
Unless your talking about Guerrilla warfare -screws with the formula. But we are talking Total War.

Wasn't the entire British Strategy to defeat Germany with "a thousand cuts". (one reason it took so long to land in France was the back and forth on how to approach Germany - direct landing vs the above?)

The Battle Berlin, technically, was the Battle that Won the European Theater. It was literally the Battle in which Germany surrendered (regardless of if they had no capacity to fight before that or not). - also exactly what are we using as the definition of battle here anyway?
I'd argue that there were several turning points in World War 2. You keep saying name a point when Germany was winning and then loosing. Problem is given the sheer size of the conflict its possible for Germany to be winning on one front and loosing on another. Kursk for example. Germany went on the defensive after Kursk. A clear before and after. You could argue that the German high command looked at them winning the Eastern front before and trying to hold the Eastern Front after. But what are we using to define Battle? I mean you guys are using full blanket terms for "battle". Battle of Britain for example was made up of dozens of daily battles - each with its own mini turning point. These all add up to in a domino effect.

Battle of Bobs Kitchen > Battle of Bobs House > Battle of Bobs Street > Battle of BobTown > Battle of BobTopia.

Really when you get down to it, World War 2 is a Battle between the Axis and Allies made up of smaller and smaller battles.


But of course that is just the turning point of one theater of a larger conflict. Midway also comes to mind. Japans unchecked Naval power in the Pacific to virtually none at all... which for an island nation is massively crippling.

 

Ah : Citadelle (the German offensive) :this was only a detail in the history of the German/Soviet war: a German victory would have changed nothing : the outcome still would be the Soviets in Berlin .

The same for Midway : whatever the result,the final result still would be the Americans parading in Tokyo ..

PH : the result was a war between US and Japan;but,would there be no war between US and Japan without PH ?

 

Thats because its like a puzzle. You have thousands of battles. Everything comes together to fit to a "winner". Each even leads to the next. Failure at Stalingrad directly leads into Krusk for example, etc etc. Taking one or two pieces out will not change the out come.

Yeah if Germany won at Kursk, they probably would have still lost the war. May have delayed things by a year, but the end results would be the same. If America and the UK succeeded at Market Garden, probably would have shaved a few months off the war. However. If you keep pulling those pieces out of the puzzle you will eventually change it.

So.. if Germany won Kursk, Stalingrad, Battle of Britain, stopped the Normandy Landing, developed the A-bomb and if Japan had destroyed the American fleet at Midway...

Then all of a sudden you have an Axis victory.

But heck, if they had won the battle of britain who's to say all those others would have even taken place. and not a whole new timeline of war events would have been opened up??? Same for all the others. Normandy fails, and all of a sudden you have the Norway Landings or whatever. Brand new history.

But thats all what-if territory.

 

So? Just because it would nullify the first, does not imply that there cannot be more turning points: A turning point is a change of direction or motion, as explained to you previously.



Just because you want to deny it as "the" turning point, doesn't mean it can't be "a" turning point. What I find quite strange is your stance that something such as "the Turning Point Theory" actually ever existed.

Turning points exist whether you want them to or not, and the existence of more than one does not invalidate the first. Neither is it necessary to actually negate:



The above curve has two turning points (changes of Direction).

The timing of Stalingrad marks the high tide, in that during this time, 42-43, the largest amount of territory conquered by the 3rd Reich.

So while it may be simplistic, even overly so, it also serves a purpose for the uninitiated.

 

Certainly North Africa was a German defeat and Stalingrad a decisive one. I don't see anything that states Stallingrad was THE decisve battle.

I'd actually agree with this. If Britain decides to throw in the towel before the start of Barbarossa the war is over and Gemany wins.

I was going to reply to this one but Greenslime has done such an excelent job no need.

That is obviously wrong. The war started with the Axis powers advancing on all fronts and inflicting huge disporportunate losses on the allies in many cases. No turning point means that trend was never reveresed.

 

A grip on reality please. The world is split between those who talk the talk and those who walk the walk - please walk me up when the talking stops and the walking starts.

Head held firmly in hands Brian

 

There is no need for a turning point to reverse the trend,besides,the Axis advancing and inflicting huge losses does not mean that the Axis was winning .

 

There can be only ONE decisive battle : that's elementary logic.

And, I see something that states that Stalingrad was the decisive battle .:from Wiki :subject World War II :

Germany was defeated in NA and decisively at Stalingrad in Russia in 1943.

Other point : Germany was not defeated in a battle,Germany lost the war because it failed to win :and the rest followed .:the German defeat in NA was less,much less important than the German failure to win in the Battle of the Atlantic,in the border battles in the summer of 1941 in the SU,Germany also failed in the opening stage of Fall Blau,which resulted in Stalingrad .Thus, not Stalingrad was the imaginary Turning Point,but the almost immediate failure of Fall Blau .

About NA : it was a side show where Germany never could win .And,if it won,the result would be meaningless for Germany :the aim of the fighting in NA was to hold Lybia as long as possible.

Germany had to win,in the short turn,while the Allies only needed no to lose (in the short turn),the rest would follow automatically .That's why Germany had already lost the war long before Stalingrad,which could not decide the outcome of the war .if Stalingrad had fallen,Germany still would lose .

It was the same in WWI: Germany did not lose the war at the Marne (an other imaginary TP) but BEFORE the Marne .If Germany had won at Verdun,it still would lose .

 

A battle can be decisive not only in terms of the entire war, but in the aspect of who won the battle. I.e. Unequivocally.

Great Britain decisively won the Battle of Britain. Germany was decisively defeated at the Battle of Britain.


See example 3 below:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decisive?s=t

de·ci·sive
/dɪˈsaɪsɪv/ Show Spelled

adjective
1. having the power or quality of deciding; putting an end to controversy; crucial or most important: Your argument was the decisive one.
2. characterized by or displaying no or little hesitation; resolute; determined: The general was known for his decisive manner.
3. indisputable; definite: a decisive defeat.
4. unsurpassable; commanding: a decisive lead in the voting.

 

But,this does not mean that the Battle of Britain was decisive for the outcome of the war .

 

?????
I can't believe you just said that. Clearly the trend early in the war was for an Axis victory. If you don't reverese it then how do you explain their loss. They certainly aren't going to win by sitting at home and waiting for their enemies to overwhelm them are they?
If the Germans had been able to continue to gain ground vs the Soviets and inflict the same level of disportinate losses that they did in 41 in 42 the USSR would not have survived.

 

What some people are failing to understand is that Germany was the poor relation,the bantam boxer who only could win the match by knock-out in the first round,otherwise,his opponent would win on points in the 5th,6th,etc round .Stalingrad was already on the 3th,4th round when a knock-out was no longer possible .

The opponents of Germany were potentially stronger,they needed only time to be stronger and general time was aiding the Allies ..

In the beginning of the war,Germany had a small window of opportunity,but the window was closing every day .

In june 1940,Britain had only to survive til the US would intervene,the intervention of which they were confiding in;they also would win if the SU intervened,but,they were not certain of its intervention .

In june 1941,the SU had only to survive,til its mobilisation was in full swing.

 

As long as Germany did not win,it was losing .

Gaining ground was irrelevant .gaining ground = a war of attrition : Germany could never win a war of attrition

 

If the Germans had been able to continue to inflict the same level of disportinate losses that they did in 41 in 42 the USSR would not have survived.




Reply : no : Germany could not win the war by inflicting disproportionate losses,the Allies could win the war by suffering disproportionate losses .

Besides,everything that happend after 1942 was irrelevant : the dies were already cast .

 

Never heard of Pyrrhic victories ? Every German victory that was not definitive was a Pyrrhic victory .

 

Now you are just being argumentative; which just proves my point. Your "The Concise Definitive History of WW2; now garbageless and free from controversy" (2 for the price of 1) can never be written.