Midway
Stalingrad
Kursk
Bagration
Ardennes
Franco-German frontier 1939
Okinawa
Leyte Gulf
Normandy
Dunkirk
Strategic Bombing campaign vs Germany
other (see replies)
The war in Europe 1939-1945 in Pacific 1941-1945, to win a war of such long duration,
industrial war potential is decisive, who had such potential? only Uncle Sam and no one
else. So decisive battle was how to bring USA on your side, Hitler's loss at Stalingrad
might have been painful for Nazi, but could still hold in Eastfront much longer if they could
forget the Westfront. Even the 3 carriers were destroyed in Midway. In one year or so,
the Essex + Independence+ Escort Carriers could still defeat the in tact Japanese Carriers in the next battle. Neither Nazi nor Japanese had the industrial power to build up
their war fighting capabilities in such short time like USA had done in 1942-43.
The IJA and IJN can't wait until mid 42. With each passing week it only gets harder for the Japanese to invade US held possessions. And as previously stated, invading a hardened target that's so far away from a base of operations is horrific for logistics. I doubt the Japanese could have kept the invasion force supplied.Originally Posted by USSWisconsin
I am very GLAD this possibility is being discussed.
I have always wondered if there was a good reason why the Japanese didn't go on to capture Hawaii immediately after Pearl Harbor. Never saw anywhere that it was discussed even as a possibility, which makes me think there must be a really good reason the Japanese didn't do it. It seems to me that capturing Hawaii would have been a huge gain for the Japanese Empire in its war against the US, much better prize than other operations they launched. The strike in Pearl Harbor, as successful as it was, seems to me a half measure in comparison.
I'm unconvinced the logistics was the problem, it's such as big prize that it would have been well worth the effort, and at the same time, had the US lost Hawaii, the US logistic problems would have been immense, among very many other problems that would have been created.
I just would like to understand why an invasion of Hawaii immediately after Pearl Harbor apparently wasn't even in the cards for the Japanese.
Last edited by Castellano; 10 Dec 08, at 18:44. Reason: Readability
If the Japanese achieve air & naval superiority they can soften some beaches of their choosing and try to get to them. How prepared were those beaches to repel an invasion?
Do not think the IJN or IJA had any plan of landing in Hawaii 1941. As after attack P.H.
The IJN task force left without a second strike. Although officers of the IJN task force
made such suggestion but was turned down by Nagumo(CIC). With the base facilities almost
in tact. US Navy could recover quickly. With an invasion in mind, the IJN task force would
have attacked continuously until all military targets are destroyed.
I voted Moscow, unless Fuhrer Directive 21 succeeded in the first Summer, it was more or less cactus for the Nazis.
And all the ''what ifs'' if the Germans [Hitler] had done this instead of that, while fun to play around with, can't be taken too seriously.
As Alan Clarke explains in his book ''Barbarossa''..........
''It is often asked could the Germans have won the war if they had not made certain mistakes.
The general answer I believe is that the Russians also made huge mistakes.
Which is the more absurd....to allow, with the wisdom of hindsight, an immaculate German campaign against a Russian resistance still plagued by those blunders and follies that arose in the heat and urgency of battle, or to correct both and to reset the board in an atmosphere of complete fantasy, of each side making the correct move like a chess text, when " white must win "? "
Just about sums it up in a nutshell.
It's tempting to vote Stalingrad, but I would actually say Moscow in November/December 1941. If the Germans had captured Moscow and held it, before the onset of Winter, the Russian situation would have been very grave. Moscow was a communications hub as well as an important political and economic centre. With Moscow in German hands the Russians would have found it extremely difficult to move troops up and down the front.
For me, the decisive battle was the attack of Pearl Harbor as this brought USA into war.
As all other parties UK, Soviet , Germany, Japan, China, etc. having war potential almost
equal on both side. In case of win/lost, it could not be an unconditional result. Such victory
was only possible with USA on your side.
I disagree, because I am certain the USA would have come into the war anyway.
Your probably right DR, but what water do you think the following scenario holds...
Yamamoto feared that Japan did not have the resources to win a war with the U.S., so reluctantly advocated a surprise attack on the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor and then over run South East Asia, fortify island bases and bleed the Americans so much that they would eventually think it wasn't worth the effort.
But by making that undeclared attack on PH, it stirred up a hornets nest, and made the Americans determined they would never stop until Japan was completely crushed.
The attack against Hawaii was probably the worst possible thing that Japan could have done.
But If Japan, [as part of the Tripartite pact,] didn't attack Pearl Harbour, and instead just attacked the European colonial possessions like Malaya and East Indies, while doing their best to placate the U.S. would America declare war?
Given the isolationist temperament of the U. S. Congress at the time, and the American public, [the polls showing that 74% of Americans didn't want to be involved in the war in Europe even when Britain was the last major Democracy fighting the Nazi's and when American warships were being sunk and Americans killed] and 64% didn't want war with Japan unless attacked, is it questionable, even doubtful, that that the United States would have responded directly to the seizure of those foreign Colonial possessions?
Roosevelt would probably conjure an entry into the war against Japan somehow, [and without going as far as the conspiracy theories of Theobald or Toland or the many others around today about Roosevelt's implication in the PH attack, there was more then one way to skin a cat] but it would probably take some pretty devious footwork.
And how long would the Americans fight, taking the huge casualties that they did, more or less to save European colonies?
There's a different perspective on the war when you yourself are the victim of a sneak attack.
Which again comes back to this point. Supposed that Hitler had beaten Stalin for whatever reason or effort, what was going to save Tojo?
Chimo
Not sure what you mean here OoE, could you expand a little?
Once Stalin finishes his fight with Hitler, win or lose. Do you think he was going to let Tojo run around in his rear? In fact, if Stalin did lose his war with Hitler, he would need China and Korea more as they will be his only means of survival. And that means smashing the hell out of the IJA and destroying the Imperial Japanese Empire.
Chimo
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgQOkOVhfKY&feature=related"]YouTube - Come And See (with English subtitles). Part 2 (4 of 8).[/ame]
bielorusia 1943
As much as I hate Stalin and his regime, I gotta admit that the battle of Stalingrad is probably the single most decisive battle of WWII, due first to the scale of the battle as well as the strategic location of the city of Stalingrad which of course made it so bloody as both sides were pouring their resources and manpower into it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
3Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: