The Most Important Battle Of WW2

[PanzerJaeger]

...and why?

Poll coming shortly..

[Gawain of Orkeny]

This ones a no brainer.

The only reasonable answer other than Stalingrad is Pearl Harbor. One of the few instances where a loss was benificial to the winning side in the end.

[PanzerJaeger]

As a follow up, I made the poll choices based on the importance of the military operations - not any size or number scale.

For example, Pearl Harbor was a couple of hours and wasnt that big of a battle, yet its implications were huge, whereas the Fall of France was a huge battle, or more accurately many large battles, but its implications could be considered to be about the same or even less than those of Pearl Harbor.

I hope that makes sense. I used the term "battle" loosely and I possibly should have said "military operation".



Also I chose Kursk because I believe the German military was not as bad off after Stalingrad as is portrayed by some and the russian military wasnt as powerful. If Kursk was successful, the outcome of the war in russia - which was really the outcome of the entire European theater, was in doubt.

I didnt choose any Pacific battles because I am of the opinion that once the Japanese attacked the US it was a forgone conclusion that they would lose. The Pacific battles were just the act of losing for the Japanese. Even if they had kicked the Americans off Okinawa for example, it would have just been a matter of time before they came back.

[caesar44]

Stalingrad . after the battle , it was a matter of time for taking Berlin

[PanzerJaeger]

The Germans in fact won a significant battle right after Stalingrad.

Ive yet to read anything convincing that shows the German army was down for the count after Stalingrad.

[caesar44]

[QUOTE=PanzerJager]The Germans in fact won a significant battle right after Stalingrad.

So ? still...

On February 18 (1943) the minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, held his famous Sportpalast speech in Berlin, encouraging the Germans to accept a total war which would claim all resources and efforts from the entire population.

[Azi Tohak]

I pick Midway. Had the Japanese gotten lucky and taken out the American carriers and we had not lost any, I think it would have taken a while for us to get them back.

Europe on the other hand...lots of battles to choose from. Tough for me to pick just one. Moscow when the Germans ran out of gas. Their first defeat. After that the Russians were just gearing up to win with numbers. It worked...but what a price.

Stalingrad when the Germans lost so many infantry.

Kursk when the Panzers were smashed. No more flexible defence (ala Manstein's counter stroke after Operation Uranus and its follow on [can't remember the name]).

Azi

[CBR]

Stalingrad

Not so much for the losses as Kursk was worse for the German armor but Stalingrad was the turning point for the Russian fighting spirit. Stalingrad was what gave the Russians hope of victory to keep on fighting and bear the losses to gain the ultimate victory. In a bigger perspective Kursk just accelerated the German defeat.


CBR

[ah_dut]

Kursk, in terms of pure armour lost for the Germans. They really were down for the count afterwards

[sharrukin]

My opinion is that there are really only four that if they had gone differently, or in fact could have gone differently, would have been a major alteration to the outcome of the war.

None of the pacific battles qualify as the Japanese were doomed even if they had taken out all the carriers at Pearl Harbour. They would have added 6 months to a year to the pacific war at best. A defeat at D-day would have been a terrible setback but wouldn't have altered the outcome.

The Battle for France ; if the germans had been held back the French would have had time to bring their industrial strength to bear and match the german war machine. This would have required alterations in the way they fought, but war tends to clarify the mind as to what matters and what doesn't. Not real sure they could have pulled it off.

Moscow; if the germans had taken Moscow, the 1942 campaign would have been very different, and the Ural sanctuaries would have been threatened holding most of the remaining russian industry.

Kursk; a german victory would have delayed the war but I do not see it giving the Germans victory on the eastern front, given how quickly the russians could replace losses.

Stalingrad; no difference if the battle had been won or lost for the same reasons as Kursk. If this battle had never been fought and the germans had isolated and bypassed the city there might have been a larger effect.

I think Moscow as I doubt the French high command would have learned any faster than the British did, and this wouldn't have been in time to save them.

[swirly_the_toilet_fish]

I would have to choose Stalingard for the simple loss of resources to the German Army. They wasted two years beseiging a city that had little to no strategic value (it was basically Hitler attempting to take "Stalin's City"). If they had just bypassed the city or concentrated forces in the Balkans to capture oil fields, they could have sustained armour power by keeping their panzers feuled.

[discovery1]

Pearl Harbor, since it got American in the war officially(I'm pretty sure that if the Japanese hadn't attacked then the Germans wouldn't have dowed the US) Then again, the Kriegsmarine did want to take the gloves off in the Atlantic.....


Well, a close second would be Stalingrad. Kiss the mighty Sixth army goodby.

[swirly_the_toilet_fish]

Hitler didn't want the Japanese to attack the Americans until after he eliminated Britain. This would have effectively left the US and remnants of Canada isolated in North America. The Japanese couldn't simply wait and decided to be preemptive. By the way, the US was almost completely involved in the war since they were supplying the British with ships, arms, food, etc. in the Lend-Lease program initiated by FDR (he was sympathetic to the British cause).

[Aenlic]

I'll say the Battle of Britain; or more precisely the Blitz. Hitler put aside the strategic attacks on Britain's air power and associated infrastructure which was close to eliminating Britain's air abilities altogether. These targets were picked to weaken British air for the coming invasion of Operation Sealion. Instead, incensed by the British bombing of London, he ordered target priorities shifted from military targets, such as air fields and aircraft supply and manufacture, to civilian targets.

While the London Blitz (although many other cities all the way to Galsgow and Belfast were also targetted) was devastating, it also allowed the RAF to recover. Churchill wrote as much in his later memoirs. With the RAF now resupplied and the air fields mostly unharmed since the beginning of the terror bombings, they were able rebuild their air superiority and to begin tearing up Germany's bomber forces. By the end of the Blitz, the Luftwaffe's bomber assets were nearly depleted. This led to Hitler postponing Operation Sealion indefinitely and moving those air assets east to begin Operation Barbarossa.

Had Hitler not changed the plans and begun bombing civilian targets, the Luftwaffe would have succeeded in gaining air superiority over Britain, Operation Sealion would have proceeded and likely succeeded. This would have probably kept the U.S. out of the war in Europe, and maybe even have prevented the perceived need of the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor. With Britain under control, Germany could then shift full attention eastward, without having it's infrastructure bombed. Operation Barbarossa would likely have then ended differently as well; and we would be living in a much different and much darker world.

[Geoffrey S]

I'd be tempted to say the Battle of Britain too. The German forcees didn't defeat the British forces and never managed to conquer England. If they had done so it wouldn't have been possible for the Americans to use England as a starting point for an invasion into the mainland, and essentially the war in Western Europe would have been over. As it was historically Hitler was left to fight a two-front war with obvious results.

[edyzmedieval]

Kursk and El Alamein

They marked the starting of the end for Germany.

[Meneldil]

France. The war would have ended in 1940 or 1941 if the Allies (French and British)had some kind a decent generals. Thus, no Pearl Harbor, no Stalingrad, no El Alamein, no Kursk, etc.

[The_Doctor]

Battle of Britain.

-It delayed operation Barbarossa by a few weeks (6, I think), this is a few weeks closer to the Russian winter. If the Germans had launched the attack on time they could have conquered a lot more Russian territory and many every have defeated Russia, thus winning the European war.

-It gave Britain and the USA an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" with which to bomb Germany.

-It cost Germany resources.

-It proved that Germany could be defeated.

-It allowed Britain to become a base for operation Overlord.

[Franconicus]

Poland. This was the biggest mistake and miscalculation. After that, how could Germany had been able to win?

[PanzerJaeger]

Poland. This was the biggest mistake and miscalculation. After that, how could Germany had been able to win?

I dont understand? Fall Weiß was a textbook success.

[Franconicus]

Yes, maybe even a military masterpiece. However, the decition to start the war was a big mistake. Hitler's calculation that France and GB wouldn't go to war was wrong. So what I am trying to say is that even though this campaign was won the war was lost. There is no szenario how Germany could have won the war. Norway, France were other big victories and did improve the position of Germany. But Hitler was not able to end the war. And there was no realistic plan to end the war after that.
What do you do if your enemy won't accept a peace and you cannot force him? A good General/politician doesn't start a war if he has not at least knows how to end it.
At Stalingrad the war was already lost, Hitler may not have realized it. Even if Hitler had won the battle of Moscow, would that have changed things? I do not think so. And if he hadn't attacked the USSR at all. Well, sooner or later Stalin would have. And if he had won the battle of England? German fighters did not have had a realistic chance to win this battle. Even if their commanders hadn't made such terrible mistakes. But let's assume they won and Germany invaded the island successfully. So what? Would that had stopped the war? I doubt this.
No, Poland was the mistake!

[PanzerJaeger]

I understand your position a lot better Franc, although I think the war could have been won even years after Poland fell.

[CBR]

Stalingrad? How the devil did that get the most votes? Hitler would not have tried his hand against Russia if he had not failed to win the Battle of Britain.

I guess there are several important battles in this poll. If Germany couldn't have won in Poland the war would have been very short and same thing could be said of France. So they are in a sense the most important "battles"

Battle of Britain...well even if Germany could push RAF out of southern England it would not have given them air superiority for an invasion which BTW was an invasion that several high rank Germans didn't even believe in themselves! But if we assume a German invasion and victory over Britain then it was definitely one of the most important battles.

And I don't see why Hitler wouldn't have attacked Russia if he had defeated Britain? He considered Stalin to be his biggest opponent.

A failed D-Day would not have saved Germany as they were getting slaughtered on the Eastern front. Luftwaffe was more or less gone as an effective fighting force as the fuel reserves were rapidly dropping, because of the destruction of the synthetic fuel industry in spring/early summer '44. And pilot quality was very bad as well as being totally outnumbered.

But was D-Day important so Stalin didn't get it all? Hell yes.

The submarine you are referring to are the type XXI which were a very good submarine indeed but they started being deployed in spring '45 and even if they actually could harass the allies enough it would still not have helped on the eastern front.

Same thing can be said of the Battle of the Bulge as a German victory would not have changed much. But was that battle important? Again yes as it exhausted the German armor in the West and made the later Allied offensives easier.

El Alamein was a battle that had to be fought but Rommel was so outnumbered in men and material that he could never have won it and even if we assume he did it wouldn't have mattered much because of his long supply lines and lack of trucks. But at the same time we have Operation Torch. In general the fighting in North Africa was not that important IMO

Moscow could indeed be seen a very important battle as it might have broken Russia's will to fight. A D-Day against the full might of German military would have been near impossible.

Midway wouldn't have mattered much as even a total defeat for USA would have postponed the result by 6-12 months. Japan had been stretched to its limits so couldn't exploit an eventual victory and would still be completely outgunned later.

Pearl Harbor was important as it got USA into the war but it was still Hitler that declared war and I guess he didn't have to. But there is no doubt that USA entering the war was very important.

The Jugoslav/Greece campaign was important as it postponed Barbarossa by 4-6 weeks and that might have been enough to get a German victory in '41

But in general I would say the important battles are before '43 as it was just a question of time after that.


CBR

[dgfred]

Very accurate post CBR , I think you are right on the mark .

[Kagemusha]

I voted for Moscow,because it was the first time that German Blitzgrieg was actually halted and pushed back.I think it was great moral victory for Russians.I would also like to point out a little battle at the Northern front that is little known,but if it would have turned other way around it might had a huge effect on whole Russian campaign.The battle of Kiestinki.Kiestinki is located south from Murmansk at Russian Viena.Murmansk was the only Soviet harbor where allies could ship supplies to Soviet Union from the West all year around.From Murmansk there was only one railroad connection South to central Russia and it went through Kiestinki.German and Finnish forces started an attack towards Kiestinki in 30.10.1941.Their goal was to cut of this major lifeline to Russia.Finnish forces punched trough Soviet lines and moved rapidly trough forests at the town of Louhi and were so close of Murmansk Railroad that the forward troops even saw it.The problem was that the German SS troops that attacked by the roads couldnt get anywhere because of the determined Soviet defence.By that Russians could buy so much time that they could move fresh troops from Siberia via Murmansk railroad and halted the assault.It has been decades of debate here in Finland that why didnt Finnish troops cut of the Railroad because at first there wasnt really much resistance against them because they were far behind the Russian lines.Later it was revealed that the Commander of the Whole Finnish army,Marshall Mannerheim had given a secret order,that it wouldnt be in best intrests of Finland that the Murmansk railroad would be cut of.Pretty sneaky isnt it. I think it was essential for Soviet Unions survival at winter 1941 that they did get American weapons and supplies.I wonder how it would have turned out if the majority of those supplies wouldnt have arrived.

[Spartakus]

France. The war would have ended in 1940 or 1941 if the Allies (French and British)had some kind a decent generals. Thus, no Pearl Harbor, no Stalingrad, no El Alamein, no Kursk, etc.

Indeed, a major defeat against France at this early stage would probably have cooled off the Germans quite a bit, killing their impetus and weakening the German people's faith in Der Fuhrer.

Also, conquering France was an achievement of some historical weight, carrying with it great prestige.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Pearl Harbor. It launched the US into the war and secured the downfall of both the Japanese and German empires, without direct US involvement the Germans probably could have managed against Russia and the Japanese would have remained unchallenged. Also the fact that 3 or so big US carriers were away from the port and survived unscathed forced the US to recognize carriers as the main currency of naval power and allowed the victory at Midway.

[Marcellus]

Battle of Britain.

-It delayed operation Barbarossa by a few weeks (6, I think), this is a few weeks closer to the Russian winter. If the Germans had launched the attack on time they could have conquered a lot more Russian territory and many every have defeated Russia, thus winning the European war.

-It gave Britain and the USA an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" with which to bomb Germany.

-It cost Germany resources.

-It proved that Germany could be defeated.

-It allowed Britain to become a base for operation Overlord.

I agree.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Battle of Britain. If the "Tommies" had beat the "Huns" (using names coined from the opposite side, "Tommies"=Brits and "Huns"=Germans), then England would have fallen, and there goes you're D-Day landing, Germany can pull troops into Russia, Nazis win, and hopefully Hitler dies soon after anyway.

[Flavius Clemens]

The siezure of a german sub by US forces that was carrying material for a nuclear bomb to japan: Had the sub gone through, there is little doubt that a Nuclear attack could have, and would have, been made on the United States.

Never heard of this event GC - what are the details? Was the material specifications or raw materials?

Overall I'd have to say Battle of Britain - Ending the war in Western Europe means military resources can be concentrated on Russia, and access to supplies e.g. oil is easier. (OK, I'm British and biased!)