Battle of Kursk: turning point?

[Trotskylvania]

I'm not sure one can really argue which was the turning point of "the war". There were many distinct theatres, fought by different combatants, in radically different manners. Some, notably the Pacific Theatre, led to entirely new ways of fighting, notably amphibious warfare. Strategic bombing was possible on an unprecedented scale which became no longer relevant some time after the war.

Rather, campaigns in these theatres all had key turning points. Many could be argued to have one defining turning point. I would still argue (as someone who would never claim to be deeply versed) that Kursk is the greater turning point than Stalingrad for the Eastern Front, though both (especially with the Leningrad siege) were crucial events. Stalingrad was a decisive defeat for the Germans, from which they did not really recover. What it did, I would argue, is take the initiative from the Germans, moreso than the stall at Moscow had. Kursk gave the Soviets decisive initiative that they were able to press for the entire war.
Stalingrad, Leningrad and Moscow set up the turning point that was Kursk.

The industrial scale of WW2 definitely problematizes the notion of "turning point" and "decisive battle". Even the events we define as battles were usually part of larger operations, and in themselves had huge scope, often hundreds of kilometers. it does become hard to generalize when battles take place over that much territory, and indeed tend to be just notable parts in a tapestry of constant fighting.

[Trotskylvania]

Actually no but I do believe you are taking a comedic gesture serious. Production numbers throughout the whole war are irrelevant when gauging the effectiveness of the Lend Lease of the impact of it early on in the war. Fun fact, there wasn't enough Mosin-Ngant Rifles to go around for everyone otherwise we wouldn't have reports of Russians giving one rifle for every two men during the Battle of Stalingrad. I never claimed such a thing I only pointed out that Lend Lease made a significant portion of Soviet Equipment (and would be used throughout the war)

Though if you do want to talk production numbers, the USSR did produce more Tanks+SPGs then the US did(not by much), as well the US produced more Aircraft and Vehicles in general, though it lacked behind in Mortar and Artillery Production, and US also had more Crude Oil, Coal, and Iron Ore production.

I'd argue that the aircraft were more important (considering the Soviet Union's had its whole Airforce obliterated within the first three days) I never made such claims I may have implied that the Lend Lease was crucial to supplying the Red Army early on in the war(which it was) and without it the Soviet Union might have been worse for wear during the war. But I never made such claims to say the Soviet Union would lose the War without it.

This one is generally a myth propagated by the Anglo-American film Enemy at the Gates; there were incidents of formations being under armed, but those were mobilizing reservists during Operation Barbarossa. The emergency nature, and the rapidity of the German advance meant that divisions that were still mustering often found themselves in combat or encircled, and in many cases shipments of weapons had not arrived. It wasn't a general trend in the war, and it wasn't a lack of arms available, but rather those arms being in the wrong place.

[Ethel mermania]

I'm not sure one can really argue which was the turning point of "the war". There were many distinct theatres, fought by different combatants, in radically different manners. Some, notably the Pacific Theatre, led to entirely new ways of fighting, notably amphibious warfare. Strategic bombing was possible on an unprecedented scale which became no longer relevant some time after the war.

Rather, campaigns in these theatres all had key turning points. Many could be argued to have one defining turning point. I would still argue (as someone who would never claim to be deeply versed) that Kursk is the greater turning point than Stalingrad for the Eastern Front, though both (especially with the Leningrad siege) were crucial events. Stalingrad was a decisive defeat for the Germans, from which they did not really recover. What it did, I would argue, is take the initiative from the Germans, moreso than the stall at Moscow had. Kursk gave the Soviets decisive initiative that they were able to press for the entire war.
Stalingrad, Leningrad and Moscow set up the turning point that was Kursk.

The industrial scale of WW2 definitely problematizes the notion of "turning point" and "decisive battle". Even the events we define as battles were usually part of larger operations, and in themselves had huge scope, often hundreds of kilometers. it does become hard to generalize when battles take place over that much territory, and indeed tend to be just notable parts in a tapestry of constant fighting.

I have seen arguements that just talks about economic powe being the sole determinant of who wins a total war. And the book, I wish I could remember which one it was, made the point the war was lost when america entered the war simply based on the ability to output war material.

[Grenartia]

I'm actually going to jump a little earlier than your poll options and say that it was the failure of Germany to knock Britain out of the war before invading Russia.

edit: But to get back on topic, I find myself gaining a greater respect for Russian war planners in the later half of the second world war and the early cold war.

Was this kind of leadership always present? Was it simply repressed by the previous imperial government or was it the imperial governments other inefficiencies that caused the army to perform poorly?

I would also like to point out that another turning point for the war as a whole was the Attack on Pearl Harbor. In the Pacific, without American forces, Allied victory would have either been hopeless, or have taken much, much longer. In Western Europe, D-Day would also either never have happened, or would have been significantly delayed. In the Atlantic, the tide of U-boats wouldn't have been abated. And, most relevantly to this discussion, on the Eastern Front, American Lend-Lease Aid would have made it quite difficult for the Soviets to hold back the Nazi advance, much less scare the shit out of them as they run all the way back to Berlin.

I mean, sure, the Soviets could churn out T-34s at Stalingrad and have them enter battle as soon as they leave the factory floor, but good luck actually doing that without materials sent by America, and shipped to the site by American trucks. Good luck chasing them back to Berlin without any gas provided by, you guessed it, more American trucks. Hell, even the round-the-clock bombing raids by the Western Allies were only possible because of American participation in the war effort, and without the bombing raids, German production would barely have a dent in it. As much as Stalin probably wished he could have an army that could eat nothing, and crush Tigers and Panzers with their bare hands, American involvement was the cure to Soviet logistical impotence.

[Elepis]

I'm actually going to jump a little earlier than your poll options and say that it was the failure of Germany to knock Britain out of the war before invading Russia.

edit: But to get back on topic, I find myself gaining a greater respect for Russian war planners in the later half of the second world war and the early cold war.

Was this kind of leadership always present? Was it simply repressed by the previous imperial government or was it the imperial governments other inefficiencies that caused the army to perform poorly?

I would also like to point out that another turning point for the war as a whole was the Attack on Pearl Harbor. In the Pacific, without American forces, Allied victory would have either been hopeless, or have taken much, much longer. In Western Europe, D-Day would also either never have happened, or would have been significantly delayed. In the Atlantic, the tide of U-boats wouldn't have been abated. And, most relevantly to this discussion, on the Eastern Front, American Lend-Lease Aid would have made it quite difficult for the Soviets to hold back the Nazi advance, much less scare the shit out of them as they run all the way back to Berlin.

I mean, sure, the Soviets could churn out T-34s at Stalingrad and have them enter battle as soon as they leave the factory floor, but good luck actually doing that without materials sent by America, and shipped to the site by American trucks. Good luck chasing them back to Berlin without any gas provided by, you guessed it, more American trucks. Hell, even the round-the-clock bombing raids by the Western Allies were only possible because of American participation in the war effort, and without the bombing raids, German production would barely have a dent in it. As much as Stalin probably wished he could have an army that could eat nothing, and crush Tigers and Panzers with their bare hands, American involvement was the cure to Soviet logistical impotence.

^casually forgetting about the USSR's vast resources including oil and metals^

[Maurepas]

I would say the Lend-Lease Act was definitely the moment Germany had no chance of winning the war. They could no longer win the resource war, with two of the largest industrial powers on the planet now sitting on either side of them, engaged in taking them down. It was just a matter of time after that.

But I generally consider the US Civil War to be my area of expertise, and if I was to make an analogy here, Kursk and Stalingrad were alot like Gettysburg and Vicksburg. I would certainly argue that the South was doomed from the start, without British and French support there was simply no way for the Confederacy to ever match the United States in terms of resources. But those battles are when that fact became a military reality. The point at which for one side offensive ability ceased and it was just a matter of how long would it take to ground them down.

[Maurepas]

I'm actually going to jump a little earlier than your poll options and say that it was the failure of Germany to knock Britain out of the war before invading Russia.

edit: But to get back on topic, I find myself gaining a greater respect for Russian war planners in the later half of the second world war and the early cold war.

Was this kind of leadership always present? Was it simply repressed by the previous imperial government or was it the imperial governments other inefficiencies that caused the army to perform poorly?

It was mostly the latter with regard to the Czar's regime. I would argue that necessity was the mother of invention for Soviet war planners. Stalin had purged most of the officers in the military in his purges for fear that they might try and usurp him. When it became apparent he was going to have to fight the Nazis for the very existence of the USSR, he was forced to let innovative officers come into their own as commanders.

[Imperializt Russia]

The industrial scale of WW2 definitely problematizes the notion of "turning point" and "decisive battle". Even the events we define as battles were usually part of larger operations, and in themselves had huge scope, often hundreds of kilometers. it does become hard to generalize when battles take place over that much territory, and indeed tend to be just notable parts in a tapestry of constant fighting.

I have seen arguements that just talks about economic powe being the sole determinant of who wins a total war. And the book, I wish I could remember which one it was, made the point the war was lost when america entered the war simply based on the ability to output war material.

Of course. A total war is a war of total attrition. He who can build more, can afford to lose more, and grind down he who becomes outproduced until they push directly into their heartlands.

[Imperializt Russia]

I'm actually going to jump a little earlier than your poll options and say that it was the failure of Germany to knock Britain out of the war before invading Russia.

edit: But to get back on topic, I find myself gaining a greater respect for Russian war planners in the later half of the second world war and the early cold war.

Was this kind of leadership always present? Was it simply repressed by the previous imperial government or was it the imperial governments other inefficiencies that caused the army to perform poorly?

I would also like to point out that another turning point for the war as a whole was the Attack on Pearl Harbor. In the Pacific, without American forces, Allied victory would have either been hopeless, or have taken much, much longer. In Western Europe, D-Day would also either never have happened, or would have been significantly delayed. In the Atlantic, the tide of U-boats wouldn't have been abated. And, most relevantly to this discussion, on the Eastern Front, American Lend-Lease Aid would have made it quite difficult for the Soviets to hold back the Nazi advance, much less scare the shit out of them as they run all the way back to Berlin.

I mean, sure, the Soviets could churn out T-34s at Stalingrad and have them enter battle as soon as they leave the factory floor, but good luck actually doing that without materials sent by America, and shipped to the site by American trucks. Good luck chasing them back to Berlin without any gas provided by, you guessed it, more American trucks. Hell, even the round-the-clock bombing raids by the Western Allies were only possible because of American participation in the war effort, and without the bombing raids, German production would barely have a dent in it. As much as Stalin probably wished he could have an army that could eat nothing, and crush Tigers and Panzers with their bare hands, American involvement was the cure to Soviet logistical impotence.

Around-the-clock bombing was only "possible" because the Americans preferred daylight raids for precision, while the British switched to night raids very early in the war for safety. It wasn't some intention to never let up (because even if the Americans preferred night raids, except for air traffic control, it wouldn't make a difference since the same tonnage of bombs would fall).

American supplies were the cure to a logistical shortfall on the part of the Soviets - because what Lend Lease meant was that they could keep building "teeth", offensive arms. When America's supplying you with literal kilotons of spam and rail locomotives by the thousand, you don't have to devote resources to producing those things, and can build more tanks.

[Dagashi Shojo]

I doubt that was ever really a turning point, just a combination of factors which signaled that the Germans were doomed to get their asses kicked.

In regard to American participation, it certainly helped speed the end of the war up, but both Britain and Russia were more than capable of holding their own (as the Italians sourly found out in Africa).

[Grenartia]

I would also like to point out that another turning point for the war as a whole was the Attack on Pearl Harbor. In the Pacific, without American forces, Allied victory would have either been hopeless, or have taken much, much longer. In Western Europe, D-Day would also either never have happened, or would have been significantly delayed. In the Atlantic, the tide of U-boats wouldn't have been abated. And, most relevantly to this discussion, on the Eastern Front, American Lend-Lease Aid would have made it quite difficult for the Soviets to hold back the Nazi advance, much less scare the shit out of them as they run all the way back to Berlin.

I mean, sure, the Soviets could churn out T-34s at Stalingrad and have them enter battle as soon as they leave the factory floor, but good luck actually doing that without materials sent by America, and shipped to the site by American trucks. Good luck chasing them back to Berlin without any gas provided by, you guessed it, more American trucks. Hell, even the round-the-clock bombing raids by the Western Allies were only possible because of American participation in the war effort, and without the bombing raids, German production would barely have a dent in it. As much as Stalin probably wished he could have an army that could eat nothing, and crush Tigers and Panzers with their bare hands, American involvement was the cure to Soviet logistical impotence.

^casually forgetting about the USSR's vast resources including oil and metals^

^casually forgetting that most of the resources and the infrastructure to utilize them were un- or underdeveloped if they weren't under attack.

[Shofercia]

Reading is a very useful skill. One should apply it.



Soviet: We have many men but no guns

Do the words "no guns" mean something different to you than they mean to others who speak English? The Soviets produced more than 60,000 T-34s and T-34/85s. That's just a single tank, I'm not counting the KVs, or the Betushkas, or other tanks. Were all of the 60,000 T-34s produced, without guns? There were approximately 5 million Soviet Submachine guns of the PPSh-41 model produced. Again, just one model. And enough Mosin-Nagant rifles were produced to arm the Red Army. Claiming that the Red Army had no guns is bullshit.

I'm not saying that lend lease was useless, far from it. It was very helpful, especially the foodstuffs, and the logistical vehicles. But to claim that the Red Army would've lost without it, seems to be related to fappin' 'bout 'Murica.

Actually no but I do believe you are taking a comedic gesture serious. Production numbers throughout the whole war are irrelevant when gauging the effectiveness of the Lend Lease of the impact of it early on in the war. Fun fact, there wasn't enough Mosin-Ngant Rifles to go around for everyone otherwise we wouldn't have reports of Russians giving one rifle for every two men during the Battle of Stalingrad. I never claimed such a thing I only pointed out that Lend Lease made a significant portion of Soviet Equipment (and would be used throughout the war)

Though if you do want to talk production numbers, the USSR did produce more Tanks+SPGs then the US did(not by much), as well the US produced more Aircraft and Vehicles in general, though it lacked behind in Mortar and Artillery Production, and US also had more Crude Oil, Coal, and Iron Ore production.

I'd argue that the aircraft were more important (considering the Soviet Union's had its whole Airforce obliterated within the first three days) I never made such claims I may have implied that the Lend Lease was crucial to supplying the Red Army early on in the war(which it was) and without it the Soviet Union might have been worse for wear during the war. But I never made such claims to say the Soviet Union would lose the War without it.

From Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/ ... _soldiers/

You are referring to a scene from Enemy at the Gates, where fresh troops being sent to Stalingrad are only issued arms as they disembark.

Fact. In 1942 alone, the Izveshk and Tula arsenals produced over 3,000,000 Model 1891/30 pattern Mosin Nagant rifles. They produced another nearly 2 million in 1943. (http://mosinnagant.net/USSR/Soviet-M9130.asp). Another 687,426 Model 1938 Mosin Nagant carbines were produced in 1942, while 1943 production was 978,297 (The Mosin Nagant Rifle, by Terrance W Lapin).

Meanwhile by the spring of 1942, production of the PPSH-41 submachine gun was at over 3,000 units per day.

It is estimated that at it's peak, the Red Army numbered 12.5 million, and not all of them were infantry or would have carried rifles or submachine guns.

So looking at the figures we can see in 1942 alone, the Soviet Union produced roughly 4 million rifles, carbines or submachine guns, plus a bit over another quarter million semi automatic SVT-40 rifles.

Then we had another 5 million some odd Mosin Nagant rifles and carbines made just in the years of 1939-1941. This doesn't count the millions of rifles already in inventory for the Red Army, nor any submachine guns, nor any of the US military aid given to the USSR.
In a word, the idea of unarmed Red Army infantrymen and women going into battle is absurd. In addition there were well over a million assorted M1895 Nagant and TT-33 pattern pistols available for officers, tankers, pilots, etc.

Not counting Mosin Nagant rifles already in inventory at the time of the war (plus there several hundred thousand Winchester Model 1895 lever action rifles still in Soviet hands chambered in 7.62x54r, which while I am not aware of any being used in front line combat during WWII certainly would have taken a Mosin Nagant out of a rear guard soldier's hand and allowed it to go to the front) there is no reason to seriously believe that soldiers being sent to Stalingrad lacked for small arms. This doesn't even begin to look at the use of captured German arms.

Hollywood fiction movies are just that - fiction movies. Although I'm not sure, maybe we're going to have an alien v predator contest on Earth soon. Production numbers matter quite a bit, when discussing the effectiveness of lend lease. Although the contributions of foodstuffs and logistical vehicles were very helpful, the contribution of small arms and tanks... not so much. Helpful, sure, but it wasn't going to make or break a major battle, much less a campaign.

Nor was the entire Soviet Air Force exterminated during the first three days. Not sure why who had more oil and stuff was important, since both, the USSR and the US, had enough to outlast Nazi Germany.

[Ethel mermania]

Actually no but I do believe you are taking a comedic gesture serious. Production numbers throughout the whole war are irrelevant when gauging the effectiveness of the Lend Lease of the impact of it early on in the war. Fun fact, there wasn't enough Mosin-Ngant Rifles to go around for everyone otherwise we wouldn't have reports of Russians giving one rifle for every two men during the Battle of Stalingrad. I never claimed such a thing I only pointed out that Lend Lease made a significant portion of Soviet Equipment (and would be used throughout the war)

Though if you do want to talk production numbers, the USSR did produce more Tanks+SPGs then the US did(not by much), as well the US produced more Aircraft and Vehicles in general, though it lacked behind in Mortar and Artillery Production, and US also had more Crude Oil, Coal, and Iron Ore production.

I'd argue that the aircraft were more important (considering the Soviet Union's had its whole Airforce obliterated within the first three days) I never made such claims I may have implied that the Lend Lease was crucial to supplying the Red Army early on in the war(which it was) and without it the Soviet Union might have been worse for wear during the war. But I never made such claims to say the Soviet Union would lose the War without it.

From Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/ ... _soldiers/

You are referring to a scene from Enemy at the Gates, where fresh troops being sent to Stalingrad are only issued arms as they disembark.

Fact. In 1942 alone, the Izveshk and Tula arsenals produced over 3,000,000 Model 1891/30 pattern Mosin Nagant rifles. They produced another nearly 2 million in 1943. (http://mosinnagant.net/USSR/Soviet-M9130.asp). Another 687,426 Model 1938 Mosin Nagant carbines were produced in 1942, while 1943 production was 978,297 (The Mosin Nagant Rifle, by Terrance W Lapin).

Meanwhile by the spring of 1942, production of the PPSH-41 submachine gun was at over 3,000 units per day.

It is estimated that at it's peak, the Red Army numbered 12.5 million, and not all of them were infantry or would have carried rifles or submachine guns.

So looking at the figures we can see in 1942 alone, the Soviet Union produced roughly 4 million rifles, carbines or submachine guns, plus a bit over another quarter million semi automatic SVT-40 rifles.

Then we had another 5 million some odd Mosin Nagant rifles and carbines made just in the years of 1939-1941. This doesn't count the millions of rifles already in inventory for the Red Army, nor any submachine guns, nor any of the US military aid given to the USSR.
In a word, the idea of unarmed Red Army infantrymen and women going into battle is absurd. In addition there were well over a million assorted M1895 Nagant and TT-33 pattern pistols available for officers, tankers, pilots, etc.

Not counting Mosin Nagant rifles already in inventory at the time of the war (plus there several hundred thousand Winchester Model 1895 lever action rifles still in Soviet hands chambered in 7.62x54r, which while I am not aware of any being used in front line combat during WWII certainly would have taken a Mosin Nagant out of a rear guard soldier's hand and allowed it to go to the front) there is no reason to seriously believe that soldiers being sent to Stalingrad lacked for small arms. This doesn't even begin to look at the use of captured German arms.

Hollywood fiction movies are just that - fiction movies. Although I'm not sure, maybe we're going to have an alien v predator contest on Earth soon. Production numbers matter quite a bit, when discussing the effectiveness of lend lease. Although the contributions of foodstuffs and logistical vehicles were very helpful, the contribution of small arms and tanks... not so much. Helpful, sure, but it wasn't going to make or break a major battle, much less a campaign.

Nor was the entire Soviet Air Force exterminated during the first three days. Not sure why who had more oil and stuff was important, since both, the USSR and the US, had enough to outlast Nazi Germany.

The hundred octane gas for those soviet planes came from america.

[Risottia]

This one is generally a myth propagated by the Anglo-American film Enemy at the Gates

French-American, actually.
Annaud as director, co-writer and co-producer, Alain Godard as co-writer, Mandalay & Repérage as producing companies.

[Trotskylvania]

This one is generally a myth propagated by the Anglo-American film Enemy at the Gates

French-American, actually.
Annaud as director, co-writer and co-producer, Alain Godard as co-writer, Mandalay & Repérage as producing companies.

Ah. Guess I got misled by the casting.

[Hollorous]

The Soviets were the defining power of WW2. Sure, without the help of the rest of the Allies, they would have lost sorely, but the reverse is also true.

The Soviets were a major power, sure, but what about the US. The US nearly single-handedly defeated Japan. Neither the Soviets nor any of the other allies besides the US were focused on Japan.

Untrue. The British were fighting the Japanese in Burma and India:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Imphal

^ This was a major battle that is seldom discussed.

Also, the Chinese bogged the Japanese down. That theatre of the war killed about as many Japanese soldiers as the Pacific War did, if not more. Like the Germans, the Japanese faced indigenous guerrilla resistance in many of their occupied countries (Vietnam, Philippines).

And, finally, the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria pretty much annihilated 100,000 Japanese soldiers.

The US did a lot, but to say they did everything is to ignore the entire theatre of war on mainland Asia.

[Ethel mermania]

The Soviets were a major power, sure, but what about the US. The US nearly single-handedly defeated Japan. Neither the Soviets nor any of the other allies besides the US were focused on Japan.

Untrue. The British were fighting the Japanese in Burma and India:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Imphal

^ This was a major battle that is seldom discussed.

Also, the Chinese bogged the Japanese down. That theatre of the war killed about as many Japanese soldiers as the Pacific War did, if not more. Like the Germans, the Japanese faced indigenous guerrilla resistance in many of their occupied countries (Vietnam, Philippines).

And, finally, the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria pretty much annihilated 100,000 Japanese soldiers.

The US did a lot, but to say they did everything is to ignore the entire theatre of war on mainland Asia.

Even without the fighting in Burma and china, and 6our are right about that, te kwantung army was waiting for a soviet atrack that didn't come tIill the war was effectively over.

[Shofercia]

From Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/ ... _soldiers/



Hollywood fiction movies are just that - fiction movies. Although I'm not sure, maybe we're going to have an alien v predator contest on Earth soon. Production numbers matter quite a bit, when discussing the effectiveness of lend lease. Although the contributions of foodstuffs and logistical vehicles were very helpful, the contribution of small arms and tanks... not so much. Helpful, sure, but it wasn't going to make or break a major battle, much less a campaign.

Nor was the entire Soviet Air Force exterminated during the first three days. Not sure why who had more oil and stuff was important, since both, the USSR and the US, had enough to outlast Nazi Germany.

The hundred octane gas for those soviet planes came from america.

Wouldn't that fall under the category of logistics?

This one is generally a myth propagated by the Anglo-American film Enemy at the Gates

French-American, actually.
Annaud as director, co-writer and co-producer, Alain Godard as co-writer, Mandalay & Repérage as producing companies.

They must've surrendered to Hollywood Stereotypes

(Sorry, couldn't resist!)

[Ethel mermania]

The hundred octane gas for those soviet planes came from america.

Wouldn't that fall under the category of logistics?

French-American, actually.
Annaud as director, co-writer and co-producer, Alain Godard as co-writer, Mandalay & Repérage as producing companies.

They must've surrendered to Hollywood Stereotypes

(Sorry, couldn't resist!)

the gas gave the Soviets a qualitative edge over the germans. But yes it was a supply, like studebakers, radios, radio wire, and spam.

[Blakk Metal]

Nazi Germany lost when they elected Hitler.

[Hollorous]

French-American, actually.
Annaud as director, co-writer and co-producer, Alain Godard as co-writer, Mandalay & Repérage as producing companies.

Ah. Guess I got misled by the casting.

Ah, Enemy at the Gates. The movie where the Russians talk like Brits and snipers get nothing but headshots.

[Baltenstein]

The industrial scale of WW2 definitely problematizes the notion of "turning point" and "decisive battle". Even the events we define as battles were usually part of larger operations, and in themselves had huge scope, often hundreds of kilometers. it does become hard to generalize when battles take place over that much territory, and indeed tend to be just notable parts in a tapestry of constant fighting.

I have seen arguements that just talks about economic powe being the sole determinant of who wins a total war. And the book, I wish I could remember which one it was, made the point the war was lost when america entered the war simply based on the ability to output war material.

Arguably, Nazi Germany lost the war even before that because the combined industrial output of the British Empire and the Soviet Union also outmatched that of Nazi Germany and its allies. Once it was clear that a decisive victory against either Britain or the USSR was not achievable it became a long march into the inevitable.

The only scenario I see in which this could have been averted would have been the USSR completely collapsing and ceasing to exist as a state, a puppet or provisional Russian government yielding and surrendering the majority of European Russia to the Germans, with Britain eventually sueing for peace as well - before the US enters the war.

So the best the Germans could have had hoped for would have been a repeat of the events of 1917.

[Communist Xomaniax]

Nazi Germany lost when they elected Hitler.

Germany didn't elect Hitler, he was appointed by Hindenburg and promptly banned elections when his elder died.

[Baltenstein]

When Hitler ordered his tanks not to attack the entire British army that was pocketed in Dunkirk so that Goring could deliver his promise of annihilating them with his Luftwaffe, Hilter lost the opputunity to knock Britian and colonies out of the war. If he had destroyed the British army, and that would have been easy, then the UK would more than likely have been forced to accept peace. Being able to concentrate fully on the eastern front might have made all the difference against the USSR.

It wasn't an "oh, if only Goering wasn't there" situation like airdrops into Stalingrad was, Hitler was generally unwilling to press against Dunkirk.
French forces were also making a fierce rearguard to defend the beaches, a wholly unsung part of that operation.

Wholly unsung except if you ask the French who can't stop being judgemental about how their lads fought and died while the British were on the run.

[Imperializt Russia]

Nazi Germany lost when they elected Hitler.

Germany didn't elect Hitler, he was appointed by Hindenburg and promptly banned elections when his elder died.

Except for the sham election of "you agree the nation would be better off ruled solely by the Nazi Party don't you, citizen", of course.

Whilst it is very important to note that Hitler was not elected to the top job, it is equally important that the Nazi Party was able to secure an ever-larger share of the popular vote, and representation in the Reichstag.