Most decisive battle of World War 2

[deadkenny]

There's another thread on the ETO specifically where the Battle of Britain is explicitly listed and discussed.

[nabilfannoush]

Hello guys
It's hard for one to place so much of the fate the world during that time on any one battle: Neither side would back down or change their policy or strategy due to the outcome of the battle, at least not the ones listed above in my humble opinion, though Stalingrad obviously had a devestating effect on Hitler's position on the eastern front.

for me, if an outcome of a battle or the battle itself was an event that effected the course of WWII, I think the most likely would have been the battle of britain...It was the closest hitler ever got to bringing the british empire to its knees, and thus smash the hopes of an allied front against him for years to come. It was such a close-run thing, that there were times when practically the whole of british RAF fighter squadrons were in the air without any reserves, and the battle was bleeding britain of its precious few pilots. The british themselves admit that 2 more weeks of the Luftwaffe campaign against RAF installations would have for all practical purposes destroyed the RAF, rendering even the powerful Royal Navy helpless against the might of the Luftwaffe and making Operation Sea lion possible. It was Hitler's typical impatience and his rage at the small raid of british bombers on Germany that ultimately saved the gallant RAF because he switched to attacking the civilian population of London itself, and although it was barbarous act, it actually helped the RAF regroup and rearm, gaining once again control of britain's sky and operation Sealion became a dud; a fact which made Hitler's turn eastwards towards Russia.

Like I said before, in my view the Axis did not lose the war because of any one battle, they made too many mistakes, and their resources were already stretched too thin by the time the Russian and American goliaths got into the war.

[pdf27]

Concur with the Battle of Britain, although in a rather wider context than purely the battle fought by fighter command in summer 1940. Had the Germans fought and won the extended Battle of Britain (i.e. up to and including a successful Operation Sea Lion, however unlikely this may be) then the character of the war changes fundamentally.
The British Empire might not be knocked out of the war, but are fundamentally powerless if the UK is taken out. Furthermore, the US got involved in the European side of the war almost entirely through it's involvement with the US while the Germans had at the time no real interest in fighting the US aside from it's involvement with the UK.
Hence, if you take out the UK from the war it is no longer a world war but two fundamentally seperate conflicts - a European land war between Russia and Germany, and an Asian naval war between Japan and everybody else (one in which I can't see the result being noticeably different from that we saw - Japanese strategy would probably be pretty much unchanged).

All that makes it an awfully decisive battle - even if in reality the result was never in doubt due to the Germans not having anything like the ability to invade the UK without major help from Alien Space Bats...

[Feanor]

Add Barbarossa to the list.

[Dwarven Pirate]

Pearl Harbor, Dec 7 1941.

Tipping point to bring America to commit troops in both Europe and the Pacific. Sealed the doom of the Axis.

[The Chap]

hmm...

I have voted "other".

The Battle of Britain was not the sole factor in defeating "Sealion". The RN would have torn them to shreads regardless. The battle of/for the Atlantic probably deserves the title - even though a prolonged vs. deciscive action. Bomber Comand shortened the war rather than changed a tide Germany was dead even if Kursk had been won. The war of logistics had been lost to the Nazis.

I'm not submitting the final above any more than that it negates the obvious pacific US victory. (Yamamato: I have seen Detroit etc.)

In perhaps minor terms I would like to submit El-Alamein or Tubruk.

I shall explain m'self.

#1 it diverted material.
#2 Great Britain sorely needed a victory for moral.
#3 the Libyian oil fields.
#4 Suez
#5 Rommel. Tied up with Brits. Not winning the Eastern Front.
#6 the cauldron that lead to the SAS.
#7 Italy essentially ou of the war (see#2)
#8 veteran troops for Overlord.

Tommy kept Ivan moving.

[RustyBattleship]

Is there any way I can vote for two? WW II was fought on two different sides of the world. Loss of either one by the Allies could possibly cause defeat in the other.

Naval operations in the Atlantic were not all that decisive except for anti-submarine warfare. Germany had no surface Navy of respectable size and Italy was bottled up in the Mediterranean. Vichy French ships didn't want to go anywhere past Casablanca.

So, decisiveness had to hinge on a major (or series of major) land engagements. I have to pick the Normandy invasion for that. The occupation of the Allies in the west prevented Germany from sending reinforcements to the Russian front. If they could, the battle for Russia may have only ground to a stand still at the original borders.

But in the Pacific, that was a whole different ball game. Though the invasions of the Pacific Islands (Iwo Jima, Saipan, etc.) were critical steps, they could not have been carried out without Naval superiority. Not just air superiority, but Naval ships and Naval aircraft combined.

Japan had a Navy larger than all the European Axis powers combined (not much of a Navy in Albania or Lithuania). It's Naval strength had to be either defeated or held back far enough to allow the invasions of Island hopping. To do that we had to crush Japan's Naval air arm that was supported by quite a number of Aircraft Carriers, AND the rest of its surface Navy of some very fine surface combatants and with a seaborne supply system that rivaled our own (mostly destroyed at Truk).

So, obviously the answer there is the Battle of Midway. Without the large attack Carriers, the Japanese Navy was left vulnerable to both sea and air attacks.

I think BOTH Normandy and Midway had to be won by the Allies to bring the war on BOTH sides of the world to an end.

So, webmaster, how can I legally vote for BOTH? If I can't vote for both (being my honest personal opinion) then I won't vote for any.

[Feanor]

Even after normandy only about 10% of the German army was committed to the Western Front. Even though most Americans don't like to admit this, the second front was only opened to prevent the Red Army from taking over all of Europe.

[AK Fan]

Stalingrad and Al Alamein

These two battles took place roughly at the same time and, of course, can not be compared in quantitative terms. Several months and millionth armies from both sides in Stalingrad versus one month (active phase - two weeks) and two armies both of some 100 000 men in Al Alamein. But strategically German victories could led basically to the same results. In both cases Germans had they won over Russians or Montgomery could have had access to Caspian or Midlle East oil, met their supporters in Iran, Egypt and eveywhere in the region (imagine Romell as the winner marching in Cairo at least with one regiment), Turkey at war on the German side and many other horrible things changing drastically the entire picture of war.

[S2]

Feanor Reply

"Even after normandy only about 10% of the German army was committed to the Western Front."

I count 144 German Heer, Luftwaffe and S.S. divisions in the east, including tng. divisions but not separate brigades as of June 15, 1944 according to this site. I didn't count German arctic forces nor those in the Balkans/Greece. As of the same date, there were 57 German Heer, Luftwaffe, and S.S. divisions on the Western Front, to include reserve divisions and those refitting or forming.

Feanor, Germany never came close to 570 divisions. Wrong again-

German OoB June 15, 1944

I don't believe that the Soviets EVER fought against the quality and density of armor that faced the allies in June/July, 1944. Consider the beachhead- Liebstandarte, Das Reich, Hohenstauffen, Frundsburg, Hitlerjugend, Gotz Von Berlichgen, Lehr, 2 Panzer Div, 21 Panzer Div, 9 Panzer Div, 116th Panzer Div. All of those divisions near, at, or exceeding their nominal strength. So too the Fallschirmtruppen. This doesn't even consider the fortress divisions and subsequent infantry reinforcement during the battle.

Normandy was far beyond the capabilities of the Red Army.

I chose Kursk. It was the most dynamic battle of the war, IMHO. Still, not decisive in retrospect. I'm increasingly thinking that Barbarossa might have been. I subscribe to the notion that the German Army had beaten the Soviet Union by July 16, 1941 only to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory through operational dilettance. Indeed, I think that I could make a case that the Soviet Union was defeated as early as June 26, 1941 but for the ineptitude of Erich Von Manstein and his commander, Erich Hoepner. Finally, I believe that had the Germans occupied the Moscow-Gorki battlespace by 30September, 1941 it would have led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

[Feanor]

If that OoB is correct, then I'm wrong, but why are you not counting the Arctic front? Was fighting it against penguins and polar bears?

[Blashy]

The battle for Intelligence, once the Allies broke the German codes it was all downhill for sure.

[RustyBattleship]

If that OoB is correct, then I'm wrong, but why are you not counting the Arctic front? Was fighting it against penguins and polar bears?

Norway and Greenland.

The Germans took over Norway through Norway's fascist President Quisling. The Arctic Circle does project down into Norway and Tellamark isn't far from it. Tellamark was critical in producing Deuterium (Heavy Water) for Germany's atomic bomb research.

Even after the US took posession of Greenland from Denmark, German units were still there and required resupply if not an evacuation dog sled. Most were hunted down and captured by US Coast Guard personnel.

Oh, by the way. Though Polar Bears eat Seals, they don't eat Penguins.

Reread your post and think about it.

[Elbmek]

Other: Battle of The Atlantic

[themistocles]

Battle Of Britain

Had the Axis nations taken away the RAF then the UK would surely have fallen. The RN would have little aircover to defend themselves and would have been depleted unrecognisably.

If the UK had fallen then the battle on the western front would not have gone any further. No battle in the West = most Axis troups in the east, thus at very best extending the war in Europe and at worst... defeat for the soviets.

This would possibly also have the effect of taking the USA out of the European war and possibly ending the war in asia much quicker?

so battle of Britain... without it:-

1 No Western Front
2 No Base from which French, Polish, czech, Dutch, Belgian, Danish, Norwegian, British or American forces to operate in Europe.
3 Possibly no US involvment in the war in Europe
4 Soviets left to fight Axis power alone
5 British overseas territories become German controlled rapidly.
6 USA able to concentrate efforts in Pacific
7 Japan and possible German allies in ex British controlled areas of Asia thwarted more quickly

What say you??