The Most Decisive Battle of WWII - ETO

[deadkenny]

As per suggestions in zraver's thread, a poll on the 'decisive battle' of WWII in the European Theater of Operations.

[Bluesman]

I take my cue from Winston Churchill, who ought to know what he was talking about.

He said the only thing that really scared him during the war was the U-boat threat. It really is the only thing that could've knocked the Brits out of the war, and when the threat was defeated, victory in Europe was absolutely assured.

If the U-boats had won in the Atlantic, Great Britain was lost, and with her, the war.

But when the convoys became unstoppable, so was the Western Allies' war machine, and the Reich was simply doomed.

[dalem]

I'm going with Dunkirk. I think that if the BEF's losses had been total (or near-total) Churchill's govt might have been overturned, and without Churchill...

-dale

[Bluesman]

Dam' good point.

[MrFirst]

Though WWII had a lot of decisive battles, all of which couldn't happen one without another, but if we anyway are looking for "the most decisive", this was, of course, Stalingrad battle. Just look at scale of battle, numbers of participating troops, losses of sides. At least the Germans themselves absolutely have no doubts which battle was decisive.

[Berkis]

I'm going with Dunkirk. I think that if the BEF's losses had been total (or near-total) Churchill's govt might have been overturned, and without Churchill...

-dale

Dunkirk could have been decisive, if there was sufficient explanation that after the loss, the British government might have been ready to negotiate a peace settlement.

But, nonethless, until summer 40 Hitler had not developed any basic plans for the continuation of the war against Britain.

I vote for the Battle of the Atlantic.

[deadkenny]

Arguably Dunkirk was more decisive than the Battle of Britain, unless you define the 'Battle of Britain' to include the potential defeat of the RN and actually successfully landing in England on a bunch of converted river barges. As it was the Germans had at least 3 major hurdles to cross, and they didn't even manage the first one (air superiority over SE England).

[Shamus]

I take my cue from Winston Churchill, who ought to know what he was talking about.

He said the only thing that really scared him during the war was the U-boat threat. It really is the only thing that could've knocked the Brits out of the war, and when the threat was defeated, victory in Europe was absolutely assured.

If the U-boats had won in the Atlantic, Great Britain was lost, and with her, the war.

But when the convoys became unstoppable, so was the Western Allies' war machine, and the Reich was simply doomed.

I'm with Bluesman on this..If Hitler had given his U-boats more resources early in the war before effective countermeasures were developed and cut the sea lanes to England,..No more England,No realistic base for opening of the second front and Europe under the Nazi bootheel for a long,long time.

[deadkenny]

Unless the Germans 'win' the Battle of the Atlantic and still manage to lose to the Russians. Of course, that still leaves Europe under a boot heel, it's just Stalin's in place of Hitler's.

[Shamus]

Unless the Germans 'win' the Battle of the Atlantic and still manage to lose to the Russians. Of course, that still leaves Europe under a boot heel, it's just Stalin's in place of Hitler's.

Good point...you're still gettin' squashed.

[dalem]

Dunkirk could have been decisive, if there was sufficient explanation that after the loss, the British government might have been ready to negotiate a peace settlement.

But, nonethless, until summer 40 Hitler had not developed any basic plans for the continuation of the war against Britain.

I vote for the Battle of the Atlantic.

But Hitler doesn't have to be able to actually invade GB in order for the people or King to lose confidence in Churchill and sack him. And I think that if Churchill goes, the next UK govt. signs a peace treaty with Hitler which Hitler EAGERLY accepts.

No opposition in the Med, the Southern route into the Caucasus opens up, and maybe the U.S. eventually actively fights the Reich, and maybe not.

Maybe I'm suffering from "great man" sydrome, but I think Churchill is the lynchpin for the entire structure of the latter half of the 20th century.

-dale

[Officer of Engineers]

Maybe I'm suffering from "great man" sydrome, but I think Churchill is the lynchpin for the entire structure of the latter half of the 20th century.

-dale

Which is why that I do not believe that the lost of the BEF would degrade Churchill one bit. As I stated before, WWII is as much about personalities (FDR, Churchill, Hitler, and Stalin) as it is about capabilities.

Morale wise, I don't see how Churchill could not have recover from the lost of the BEF at Dunkirk as he did from the lost of the Allied Effort, DK's idiotic inclusion of two other campaigns not withstanding.

Churchill had Canada and India ... and the most important point, he knew it. This was at a time when the British were looking for whatever little hope there was ... and Churchill gave it to them. Unless anyone can convince me that the Brits could give up hope merely on the lost of the BEF, then Churchill would have lead British Empire through it and to the defeat of Hitler's Germany.

[zraver]

Which is why that I do not believe that the lost of the BEF would degrade Churchill one bit. As I stated before, WWII is as much about personalities (FDR, Churchill, Hitler, and Stalin) as it is about capabilities.

Morale wise, I don't see how Churchill could not have recover from the lost of the BEF at Dunkirk as he did from the lost of the Allied Effort, DK's idiotic inclusion of two other campaigns not withstanding.

Churchill had Canada and India ... and the most important point, he knew it. This was at a time when the British were looking for whatever little hope there was ... and Churchill gave it to them. Unless anyone can convince me that the Brits could give up hope merely on the lost of the BEF, then Churchill would have lead British Empire through it and to the defeat of Hitler's Germany.

The voters can be very fickle... especially when handed bad news. Bush 41 had the highest aproval ratings of any president in history, had just led America to the most lopsided military victory of all time, saw the USSR dissovle and the winning of the Cold War, the hope of real peace in our time and lost the presidency on rumors of a recession.
If the BEF had gone into the bag Churchills future is very much in doubt. He does after all have a history of getting Tommy's mauled in forgien adventures. he also lost an election late war after beating Hitler.

[zraver]

I voted fpor the strategic bombing campaign that starved Germany of guns, steel, planes, fuel, and production.

[dalem]

Which is why that I do not believe that the lost of the BEF would degrade Churchill one bit. As I stated before, WWII is as much about personalities (FDR, Churchill, Hitler, and Stalin) as it is about capabilities.

Morale wise, I don't see how Churchill could not have recover from the lost of the BEF at Dunkirk as he did from the lost of the Allied Effort, DK's idiotic inclusion of two other campaigns not withstanding.

Churchill had Canada and India ... and the most important point, he knew it. This was at a time when the British were looking for whatever little hope there was ... and Churchill gave it to them. Unless anyone can convince me that the Brits could give up hope merely on the lost of the BEF, then Churchill would have lead British Empire through it and to the defeat of Hitler's Germany.

Mmm, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that, assuming a total or near-total loss of the BEF, Churchill's morale wouldn't matter as much as Parliament's and the King's and the people's. If that were true, then Churchill could have gone the way of Chamberlain, right? Then the rest (in my opinion anyway) could follow.

That all assumes that the loss of the BEF would have been perceived as a mortal blow by any of the three entities I mention above, which may or may not have been true.

-dale