The Most Important Battle Of WW2

[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.

[The Stranger]

i voted, stalingrad, but i also thinkThe battle of britain was very important. if germany had succeeded, america would never have fought in europe. i also so think that if russia wasnt communist, America would never have came too. this is not against the soldiers (who did a great job, they're my heroes) but against the goverment.

[Franconicus]

Was there ever a chance Germany could win this battle?

[The Stranger]

well when they started. if they didnt ivaded russia the russia they might have won. but i dont know that for sure

[IliaDN]

well when they started. if they didnt ivaded russia the russia they might have won. but i dont know that for sure

If you use capitol letters it would be nice.
IMHO invading USSR was somekind of a preventive attack, as some historians say.

[clayton ballentine]

The Allies forced there way through Italy and captured Rome in the early June. Italy surrendered, but German troops stubbornly kept fighting. On the eastern front, the siege of Leningrad ended as the soviets drove the Nazis back. Soviet troops finally entered Germany itself in October. In the pacific, United states forces continued to island hop, moving closer to Japan with every island taken. The U.S. Navy led the way to winning back the Pacific. The Battle of the Philippine Sea in June was the greatest carrier engagement of the war.

Source: World War II battles and leaders

[Don Corleone]

I picked the Coral Sea. This was a desparate gamble for the American Navy. Had it failed, the United States would have had to restructure the Navy, pulling much needed resources out of the Atlantic theater. Had they done that, U-boat attacks would have continued to grow in effectiveness, virtually removing the American supply lines from the Allies in Europe. No 2nd front in North Africa means no victory at Stalingrad. Also, if we had lost this battle, the Japanese advance to Australia would not have been checked, and it's very likely that the Japanese would have overtaken much of Australia within 18 months.

I know it's not as exciting to read about as Midway, Stalingrad or others, but in terms of what was riding on it, it was the single most important battle of the war.

[Tribesman]

They were vital early on, very vital.

OK
They could care less, after all all the men were out fighting so it was only the weak and old left. The industries would of course get the priority of food so no impact there.
yes the industry manned by the weak and the old who needed to be fed , after the USSR had lost its "breadbasket" to foriegn occupation . So how do you feed the workers when your wheat fields are in enemy hands ?http://www.geocities.com/mark_willey/lend.html
Oh yes , you get 34 million dollars worth from your friend .

SuribachiNot once the Americans came into the war.
It predated that , 4 stackers , Greenland , Iceland , lend lease(back to 4 stackers) , W. Atlantic escorts(neutral of course)......Though as G. Cube mentioned , it was a war of technology , and big thanks go out to the Poles who supplied an Enigma machine to the British (via the French) long before the episode with the submarine (that was turned into a film ) .
Intelligence can be the key to any victory , when the battlefield is thousands of miles wide then accurate intelligence is the decisive factor .

[Kraxis]

As I said, the priority of food would go to the industry, it would run on. And the breadbasket of the west was that, a basket of surplus by the time of the war, gone was the famine of the early 30s (things were learned from that). As well as a major population center. It counts both ways.
Remember that entire new cities were constructed in the east, best known is perhaps Tankograd (guess what they made there), with outlying villages and communal farms to feed them. Those that would suffer were the rural population not tied into this sceme of things. But as I said, the leadership couldn't care less about them if the prize was victory, and it would be.

[Tribesman]

best known is perhaps Tankograd (guess what they made there),
Bugger all without the raw materials .

[Kraxis]

Now you make it sound as if Russia had no resources ready. Of course it did. The Urals and Caucasus were crampacked with mines of all sorts. Damn even the deep Siberia was producing stuff. Remember Stalin's little stunt in the early 30s? You know the one where his export of grain killed off millions of peasants? Well that upped the industry to the point it had at the outbreak of war, that was retained and increased. Now Stalin wasn't one to like to go to the big bad imperialistic capitalists. Damn no, he wanted to produces as much at home as possible. Well that came in handy later on.

It wasn't as if they were sitting on their hands going "What are we going to do now, the Germans have taken our food." They had options... Bad options, but options.

[sharrukin]

best known is perhaps Tankograd (guess what they made there),
Bugger all without the raw materials .

I don't know how to break this to you but Russia has raw materials. You make it sound like we are talking about the Arabian desert without the oil.

The Lend-Lease aid was very helpful to the Russians, but it didn't win the war. We sent it because they were fighting and it was a way for us to use our resources against Germany even when we were not in direct combat with the Germans.

Russia has immense oil, mineral, food, and industrial power and we helped them at a time of crisis with Lend-Lease.

BTW, they were shipped 5 million tons of food. Thats a lot of food but only a small portion of what a nation the size of Russia needed. Maybe 90 days of food. Very helpful yes.

[Kraxis]

The great part of the food sent was the simple fact that it was already packed and ready. THAT made it a good help, the Russians then could send it whereever they needed it. If I'm not mistaken the Russian soldiers loved the American canned beef. But if they can come to love it they can't have been eating it too much (you get tired of the same food over and over).

Lets say that a human needs 1kg of food each day, it sounds like a lot, but really it isn't that far off if you worked hard labour such as at a farm or in heavy industry back then. Now lets assume there were 100 million Russians (there were more but bear with me). So we end up at a daily rate of 100 million kg of food, that is 100,000 tons of food each day. That adds up to 50 days worth of food they got through lend and lease.
Added alltogether I think my figures are fair. There were more 'free' Russians but then there was all those who didn't eat 1 kg each day.

So as I said, it was a very nice and obviously beloved help, but not a critical one beyond the desperate days of 41.

[Redleg]

As I see it there were four battles that were important during WW2.


Battle of Britian. This to me is the first of the important battles of WW2. Britian at this time was the only remaining power opposing Hilter's Germany. If Britian would of surrendered or negotated a peace with Hilter the course of the war for the allied side would of been different. For instance without England being in the fight would Germany felt it necessary to declare war on the United States? Would the United States have fought in Europe at all without England being in the War?

Stalingrad - The stupidity of Hilter being involved in controling the Army began to show its ugly head and the German Army was never able to get him out of running the battles ever again. This battle in essence broke the right arm of the German war effort. One that they could of recovered from in time if Hilter would of realized he had no ability in managing such a large scale battle - but since he was an egomanic and a despot to boot - which was good for the world - he continued to mettle in military affairs. This followed shortly later by the battle of Kursk - doomed Germany to defeat on the Eastern Front. Aided a little by the allied invasions in Italy and later on France.

Pearl Harbor - without Japan attacking Pearl Harbor it would of been difficult for FDR to get the United States into the war against Germany. Isolationist were still a major factor in American politics at the time.

Guadacanal - Midway. These two battles happened close to each other and are important for the same reason. Guadacanal showed the Americans that they could defeat the more experienced Japanese Army on the ground - where Midway crippled the Japanese Navy and placed them on the defensive.

However as the most important Battle of the war I voted for the Battle of Britian because it was the first of the series of battles and without Britian's victory there - the possiblity of a different conclusion for the Battle of Stalingrad is very likely. Considering the loss of German aircraft in that battle. Aircraft that could of possibly closed off the re-inforcement avenues of Russian soldiers into the city. etc.

[Kraxis]

BoB wasn't exactly a British victory more like, not a German victory. But the results stay the same.

If the Germans had just realized that they only needed local air superiority then it would likely have been very different.

[Redleg]

Just a little nitpick here: Germany declared war on the US after Pearl Harbour. If they hadn't, we would have only gone to war against Japan.

Then you misunderstood the statement. Without Japan attacking Pearl Harbor the United States would not have entered the war. Germany would not have declared war on the United States - nor the United States declaring war on Germany.

[Redleg]

Not to nitpick again, but you made the statement sound like that was the necesarry excuse to go to war with Germany.

It was the necessary event to go to war with Germany. The United States while supporting England and Russia was not willing to go to war with Germany. Only with the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese was the necessary public opinion swayed to bring the United States into the war. Futhermore Germany helped it along by declaring war on the United States before we declare war on Germany.

Not once did I use the word excuse - now did I?

Without Pearl Harbor - FDR did not have the politicial power to bring the United States into the conflict on the side of England.

Just as a matter of proof - try explaining the two years of the European conflict that we set out of - while one of our WW1 allies were over-ran by Germany and our other Ally had to place themselves almost bankrupt to get us to supply them with equipment.

Historical Fact - without Pearl Harbor the United States would of set out the European Conflict. Why - because it had come down to at that time two powers that we detested at the time - Facism and Communism. Back up material

http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/usa.htm

The American public did not share his (FDR's) sense of urgency. The European War seemed far away. The American public blamed the Europeans for their war. China, while forgotten during the invasion of Poland, the Fall of France, and the Battle of Britain, seemed to most Americans to be the war America should fight, if America had to fight at all

http://www.threeworldwars.com/world-war-2/ww2.htm

But as the war in Europe continued, America's leaders were attempting to get America involved, even though the American people didn't want to become part of it Roosevelt, the presidential candidate, was promising the American people that the Roosevelt administration would remain neutral should he be re-elected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_2

Hitler made the declaration in the hopes that Japan would support him by attacking the Soviet Union. Japan did not oblige him, and this diplomatic move proved a catastrophic blunder which gave President Franklin D. Roosevelt the pretext needed for the United States joining the fight in Europe with full commitment and with no meaningful opposition from Congress. Some historians mark this moment as another major turning point of the war with Hitler provoking a grand alliance of powerful nations who could wage powerful attacks on both East and West simultaneously.

[Redleg]

Well, uh, yeah. I know all that. I'm just saying that if Germany hadn't declared war, we would've stopped at Japan.

Which is exactly what my statment meant - which you tried to nitpick. The attack of Pearl Harbor caused the United States to enter the war. Everything that happened after that - the Germany declaring War - the United States entering the war in Europe was all based upon that action.

[The Stranger]

the goverment did wanted war, didnt they?

[Redleg]

From what I have read - FDR wanted to take the United States to war sometime late 1939 to Mid 1940's. The build of the United States Military after the invasion of Poland is a good timeline to review to come to one's own conclusion on the matter

[Gemenii XIII]

Has to be STALINGRAD. I mean all these other battles pail in comparison to what happened at stalingrad. After the Germans lost that battle it was over. Nothing could stop the Soviets. That is why the soviets marched trough berlin and not the British/American/Canadian (not to discredit their war effort). In europe the most important battle was, hands down, Stalingrad. In the far east probably Midway.

[Grey_Fox]

Kursk was far more detrimental to the Germans than Stalingrad.