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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.