Most decisive battle of World War 2

**Yermak** · 14 Apr 09,, 09:21

lol Normandy has more votes than Kursk

. That's just silly.

I didn't vote here, because I believe that the battles of Moscow and in a not so much lesser degree Leningrad where more significant.
Popular history places Stalingrad as the decisive battle of WWII, but what most fail to realise is that it was seen as a decisive battle at the time it was fought.
Today though, with so many documents revieled and so much analysis about the Eastern Front it leads to a conclusion that after failing to capture Moscow, Axis lost the war on the war.

Battle for Moscow gets my vote.

**~~gabriel~~** · 15 Apr 09,, 11:19

Nobody voted for the summer ofensive of 1944 wich blew a 400 miles wide gap in the german front and destroyed Army Group Center?

**reve893** · 16 Apr 09,, 08:02

True but it wasn't very decisive since the German fate was pretty much sealed

**Wirbelwind** · 03 Dec 09,, 19:33

Im sure its been mentioned to death but I would really vote for the Russian winter counter offensive of dec 41 to roughly apr 42. During this section Germany was stopped short of victory and surrendered initiative over to Russia for most of the remainder of the war.

Its not well known but during Fall Blau when the Germans were advancing in the South, Groups Center and North were fighting for their very survival. Both army groups had smaller panzer reserves set aside for minor campaigns to shorten the frontline(one of the operations being my handle on this forum) and eventuall aid with Leningrad but, because the Russians were hammering away at the 9th Army in Rhzek the whole summer of 42 they had to constantly commit these reserves just to hold their front lines.

Finally, their really wasnt a single decisive "battle" that changed the war, only campaigns. Midway was probably the greatest battle listed as Stalingrad and Kursk were longer operations.

**Gun Boat** · 21 Dec 09,, 05:44

Stalingrad.

Maybe just removing Hitlers orders for the 4th Panzer to turn south could have won it for them. Those extra few days could have seen 6th Army take Stalingrad with ease and have the 6th on a more mobile footing to counter attack the Russian encirlement attempt. From what Ive read though, for the 6th army to survive the germans would have to abandon Stalingrad anyway, there was just no way to hold it.

Having the 6th army available in 43 would see the Germans in a much better position for the summer offensives which would have seen alot more damage done to the red army.

The more you I look into the eastern front the more evidence I see that that by 1945 historically the Russians were scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of manpower. The common misconception the Russia possessed 'infinite' manpower reserves is very wrong.

**tantalus** · 09 Oct 10,, 22:08

I agree with a point by Bigfella. The battle of Khalkhin Gol in Mongolia in 1939 was crucial ,where Soviet troops defeated the Japenese curtailing their expansionist goals in the north, an area of contension since the 1904 Russo-Japanese conflict. As a result, they looked south instead, leading to the pacific conflict, drawing the americans into the war. Furthermore, the soviets could focus their forces entirely to the west, fighting a war on 1 front, unlike the germans.
Other vital conflicts in the pacific were pearl harbour and midway for obvious reasons. however I do agree with another previous point that the pacific conflict had only 1 eventual outcome once the japanese made their decision to expand southwards.
In europe,actions in the Atlantic, Britain, N.africa and Italy tied up German force but were not vital in the military outcome, British survival in the battles of Britain and the Atlantic would have been even more important had the soviets not been so rapidly successful. There are a great number of significant battles, but I would nominate Kursk which resulted in a constant german retreat thereafter. They suffered colossal losses in tank numbers similar to the soviets, however they could not afford them. It's a bit hard to imagine really......

**~~AdityaMookerjee~~** · 10 Oct 10,, 15:58

If the Soviet Red Army had lost Stalingrad, then it would have been impossible for the Allies to make a landing on D-Day. The great generals of Stalingrad would have been purged, and executed, perhaps, less capable generals would have been elevated.

**1979** · 11 Oct 10,, 10:32

Stalingrad by itself was irrelevant at that point. The soviets only feed Chiukov enough men to slowly grind the Germans by attrition's. The stavka had understood correctly that Hitler would never allow the 6th army to retreat once encircled.
The destruction of the italian, hungarian, romanian army's on the flanks of the german 6th army meant that army group A was left with no choice but retreat.
As for the purges ; Zhukov had failed miserably at Rzhev with a similar force composition.
pointless to say that nothing happened to Zhukov as result.

**tantalus** · 11 Oct 10,, 11:19

1979 has valid points. I would say that the significant part of Stalingrad was not the final defeat so much as the halting of the german forces a year earlier, they failed to gain the major advantage or victory, the "delay" was crucial to any hope of german victory. People like to choose the turning of the tide (one of these battles, say moscow, stalingrad) when the germans were forced back as the decisive period, a valid arguement. However, it can be argued that the war was not immediately decided, that the germans could still reverse the losses. However after Kursk, a battle which both sides new was coming and both commited massive resources, not so much in men but in armour (more critical than manpower) the germans had no hope of a complete reversal or any major ability to counterattack. The reason I nominate kursh is as that there was no return after it, the war's outcome was decided.

**Bigfella** · 11 Oct 10,, 11:34

Originally Posted by tantalus

I agree with a point by Bigfella. The battle of Khalkhin Gol in Mongolia in 1939 was crucial ,where Soviet troops defeated the Japenese curtailing their expansionist goals in the north, an area of contension since the 1904 Russo-Japanese conflict. As a result, they looked south instead, leading to the pacific conflict, drawing the americans into the war. Furthermore, the soviets could focus their forces entirely to the west, fighting a war on 1 front, unlike the germans.
Other vital conflicts in the pacific were pearl harbour and midway for obvious reasons. however I do agree with another previous point that the pacific conflict had only 1 eventual outcome once the japanese made their decision to expand southwards.
In europe,actions in the Atlantic, Britain, N.africa and Italy tied up German force but were not vital in the military outcome, British survival in the battles of Britain and the Atlantic would have been even more important had the soviets not been so rapidly successful. There are a great number of significant battles, but I would nominate Kursk which resulted in a constant german retreat thereafter. They suffered colossal losses in tank numbers similar to the soviets, however they could not afford them. It's a bit hard to imagine really......

You show fine judgement indeed sir. I have high hopes for your future hereabouts.

**1979** · 11 Oct 10,, 11:53

My vote goes to Pearl Harbour .
It had allowed Roosevelt to gain the american people aproval for war and it shifted the economic ballance in favour of the allies.

About two hours before Hitler began his address to the Reichstag, Germany formally declared war against the United States when Reich Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop delivered a diplomatic note to the American Charge d'Affaires in Berlin, Leland B. Morris.

At almost the same time, the German Charge d'Affaires in Washington, Hans Thomsen, presented a copy of this note to the Chief of the European Division of the Department of State, Ray Atherton. Here is the text of the note:

The government of the United States of America, having violated in the most flagrant manner and in ever increasing measure all rules of neutrality in favor of the adversaries of Germany, and having continually been guilty of the most severe provocations toward Germany ever since the outbreak of the European war, brought on by the British declaration of war against Germany on September 3, 1939, has finally resorted to open military acts of aggression.

On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States of America publicly declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force to shoot on sight any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27, 1941, he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force.

Acting under this order, American naval vessels have systematically attacked German naval forces since early September 1941. Thus, American destroyers, as for instance, the Greer, the Kearny and the Reuben James, have opened fire on German submarines according to plan. The American Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that the American destroyers attacked German submarines.

Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States of America, under order of their government and contrary to international law, have treated and seized German merchant ships on the high seas as enemy ships.

The German government therefore establishes the following facts:

Although Germany on her part has strictly adhered to the rules of international law in her relations with the United States of America during every period of the present war, the government of the United States of America from initial violations of neutrality has finally proceeded to open acts of war against Germany. It has thereby virtually created a state of war.

The government of the Reich consequently breaks off diplomatic relations with the United States of America and declares that under these circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt, Germany too, as from today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the United States of America.

Hitler's Reichstag speech of December 11, 1941

**tantalus** · 11 Oct 10,, 13:56

but the Pacific was not the most important theatre. The japanese alwalys faced defeat once the american machine at home got mobilised. I know the americans contributed alot of resources to the soviets but I cant comment on how significant this impacted on the outcome of the german-soviet conflict. I would question if it was crucial in changing the balance, did it come early enough? or did it just re-inforce soviet superiority later in the war once the hard work was done. If the latter is the case, I would argue that american involvement was not decicisive in the defeat of the germans, as the russians were the critical factor in their defeat and that the pacific theatre was not the most crucial theatre, thus pearl harbour is not a suitable choice for most decisive.

**Albany Rifles** · 11 Oct 10,, 13:59

Originally Posted by Bigfella

You show fine judgement indeed sir. I have high hopes for your future hereabouts.

What a suck up!

**Albany Rifles** · 11 Oct 10,, 14:22

Originally Posted by tantalus

but the Pacific was not the most important theatre. The japanese alwalys faced defeat once the american machine at home got mobilised. I know the americans contributed alot of resources to the soviets but I cant comment on how significant this impacted on the outcome of the german-soviet conflict. I would question if it was crucial in changing the balance, did it come early enough? or did it just re-inforce soviet superiority later in the war once the hard work was done. If the latter is the case, I would argue that american involvement was not decicisive in the defeat of the germans, as the russians were the critical factor in their defeat and that the pacific theatre was not the most crucial theatre, thus pearl harbour is not a suitable choice for most decisive.

Pearl Harbor was a game changer in that the US switched from a provider to an ally. The US reached full industrial mobilization in December 1943 after gearing up fully starting in January 1942....as a result of Pearl Harbor. By mid 1943 some historical economists estimate that Lend Lease was responsible for 21% of the Soviet economy.

**tantalus** · 11 Oct 10,, 16:19

Thanks, that clearly indicates a significant contribution (linked to pearl harbour) that would have had a major impact, was it decisive - I dont know, alot of that contribution probably came later in the war when the game was up. In that, the russians had done most of the work themselves. I think that may have been the conclusion by the historian Norman Davies in Europe at War , but I may be corrected on that one.
The russians had so much military might in the final phase, they couldnt utilise it all, represented by the force accumulated for the capture of Berlin, obviously in part thanks to the americans. It's important to get to grip with the massive scale of the battles on the eastern front compared to the rest of the conflict, mostly contributed by the soviets. It is clear that pearl harbour had significant ramifications on all fronts of the war, unlike kursk, moscow, midway etc. (but this is not prove in itself of most decisive). The question is was pearl harbour DECISIVE on the east euro front?, (ASSUMING it is agreed that this was the most crucial area of conflict) . Clearly significant contributions where made under lend lease but was this decisive or would the russians have won either way?. If the east euro front can be agreed as the most important, than we can narrow or field of interest to any battle that influenced it outcome and determine the most significant