Most decisive battle in WW2?
Doppleganger
Active member
Hey Topmaul, I am a big fan of the German military system but even if Kursk had been successful, it would not have prevented a Soviet victory. It was too late even before Stalingrad for Germany to win a decisive victory.
The Battle of Kursk was not that long. The Germans, after Kursk could only retreat, but I feel that even before Kursk they had lost the decisive initative on the Ostfront.
Moscow was the biggest blunder followed closely by Stalingrad. Kursk third!
Stalingrad was the bloodiest and most costly but is it the most desisive? I guess the result was the most clear cut as the 6th Army was destroyed but was the loss greater in importance than the loss at Moscow? Its a good discussion on its own.
Last edited:
I think some of our US friends don't have a good knowledge of the Ostfront. WW2 was won and lost there!
As a kid I read everything I could get my hands on concerning Word War Two from US perspective, years later I was getting ready to sail and I picked up "The 10,000 Mile War" about the war in Alaska because that was where we war headed. When I finished that I found a used copy of "Operation Drumbeat" and was hooked I read every thing I could find on the German U-Boat are and Surface forces, after that I started reading books like SOLDAT, Panzer Aces, etc. I found I knew almost zero about the Russian Front so I got a few books like "BLOOD UPON THE SNOW" and others so I consider myself pretty well read on the subject but a bit rusty on details because it's been a long time.
Also I was a Re-Enactor with the 11th Panzer Granaders and learned to use German Heer field gear it really puts things into perspective. For example with all that metal field gear how did the Germans move so quietly at night? I used to clank!
There are some excellent books around on the Battle of Moscow. I have one in my possession which I will have to dig out again. The immensity of the battle described in this book just blew me away. The Germans were pretty close to securing ww2 but stuffed it up. They (Army Group Centre) nearly got anihilated (as Doppleganger described) and Russian losses were immense. It was a major crisis that lasted for a couple of months in the freezing conditions of 41/42.
ww2 was decided on the Ostfront.
Last edited:
Papashah41
Active member
World War 2's most Decisive Battle
Once Hitler attacked Russia the die was cast. The moment operation Barbarossa commenced Germany lost the war. In this respect I suppose I would pick as the most decisive battle on the Ostfront, Stalingrad. But the most decisive battle was the battle which took Hitler's mind away from the west towards the red giant known as the Soviet Union. The most decisive battle of WW 2 was The Battle of Britain. By Sept. 1940 the R.A.F. was on the ropes. A few more weeks of this pummeling of the airfields and sector stations would have brought the R.A.F. to it's knees. Then an event happened which changed the war forever. Some German Bombers lost their way and dropped their payload on central London. The British retaliated and bombed Berlin. Hitler's next move was motivated by rage, not common sense. He immediatly ordered the terror bombing of British cities, especially London. But,he was always pre-occupied with the Soviet Union and with a twisted logic decided to attack it. He stated that an attack and victory of the Soviet Union would bring England to it's senses. For Britain will have lost it's last ally. What Hitler didn't know or wouldn't admit was Britain had put it's salvation in the hands of the United States. Churchill was getting huge amounts of aid from America and was determined to drag the American nation into the war, kicking and screaming if need be. As we all know Japan did the trick for him. But this does show the fantasy world the German leader lived in. His under-estimation of the tenacity of the Russian soldier and his complete surprise when his troops and armour ran into the T34 and the KV series of heavy tanks shows his intelligence agencies were not doing their work properly. But I do digress. The Battle of Britain won by the R.A.F. and a tenacious British public started Hitler on his great series of mistakes, which makes it the most decisive battle in WW 2.
Once Hitler attacked Russia the die was cast. The moment operation Barbarossa commenced Germany lost the war. In this respect I suppose I would pick as the most decisive battle on the Ostfront, Stalingrad. But the most decisive battle was the battle which took Hitler's mind away from the west towards the red giant known as the Soviet Union. The most decisive battle of WW 2 was The Battle of Britain. By Sept. 1940 the R.A.F. was on the ropes. A few more weeks of this pummeling of the airfields and sector stations would have brought the R.A.F. to it's knees. Then an event happened which changed the war forever. Some German Bombers lost their way and dropped their payload on central London. The British retaliated and bombed Berlin. Hitler's next move was motivated by rage, not common sense. He immediatly ordered the terror bombing of British cities, especially London. But,he was always pre-occupied with the Soviet Union and with a twisted logic decided to attack it. He stated that an attack and victory of the Soviet Union would bring England to it's senses. For Britain will have lost it's last ally. What Hitler didn't know or wouldn't admit was Britain had put it's salvation in the hands of the United States. Churchill was getting huge amounts of aid from America and was determined to drag the American nation into the war, kicking and screaming if need be. As we all know Japan did the trick for him. But this does show the fantasy world the German leader lived in. His under-estimation of the tenacity of the Russian soldier and his complete surprise when his troops and armour ran into the T34 and the KV series of heavy tanks shows his intelligence agencies were not doing their work properly. But I do digress. The Battle of Britain won by the R.A.F. and a tenacious British public started Hitler on his great series of mistakes, which makes it the most decisive battle in WW 2.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I agree with your logic but disagree with your conclusion.
The short answer is that even Hitler knew the German army could not cross the channel successfully for at least a year he had been told by both the Luftwaffe and the Kreigsmarine that they could not prevent the Royal Navy from intervention and he accepted this by all accounts therefore even had the Luftwaffe gained control over southern England it is unlikely Operation Sealion would have gone ahead because of the presence of a very dominant Royal Navy.
It is because of this I do not believe that the Battle of Britain is a contender for this title.
The short answer is that even Hitler knew the German army could not cross the channel successfully for at least a year he had been told by both the Luftwaffe and the Kreigsmarine that they could not prevent the Royal Navy from intervention and he accepted this by all accounts therefore even had the Luftwaffe gained control over southern England it is unlikely Operation Sealion would have gone ahead because of the presence of a very dominant Royal Navy.
It is because of this I do not believe that the Battle of Britain is a contender for this title.
Papashah41
Active member
Le Enfield, I agree totally with this position. Hitler lost the war with Barbarossa. If he would have left the Soviet Union alone and concentrated on Britain he may very well have won the war. Even before the battle of Britain, Grand Admiral Raeder tried unsuccessfully to get Hitler to not only leave the Soviet Union alone for the time being, but also to leave England alone. Rommel came to the same conclusion six months later. Raeder showed the Fuhrer how he could destroy Britain without a costly cross channel move. He proposed the instant taking of North Africa, with the target being Egypt and the Suez Canal in particular. After this was accomplished, Malta would be next on the list. With the Mediterranian becoming an Axis lake all sorts of raw materials would fall into German hands. Oil, rubber and exotic food stuffs from the far east could be got quite easily. And they would also have a clear path to their Japanese allies at Singapore and beyond. From Egypt, the Germans could easily have taken Palestine and eventually Iran. By this time Franco would have taken Gibralter. The Greeks and Yugoslavs would have jumped to the Axis ship and all of this could have been done with three panzer divisions with support from the still strong Luftwaffe. Turkey would probably have been enlisted into the Axis camp, and Russia all of a sudden does not look so frightening.
Last edited:
Papashah41
Active member
MontyB, I do not disagree with most of what you say. The Royal Navy would be one tough nut to crack. But by this time they would be fighting the Nazi juggernaut by themselves. But even without the RAF the Royal Navy could persevere. Again, there may be other reasons Hitler didn,t stay with the Sea Lion plan. He secretly admired the British and hoped they would see reason and make peace. But I still believe his obsession with Russia was the main reason for changing track. But Hitler could have destroyed Britain another way. Read my piece to Le Enfield. Oh, and by the way I still believe the Battle of Britain was a decisive battle. If he had destroyed the RAF the world would have held it's breath in anticipation of his next move.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I cannot find any reason to elevate the BoB to the level of WW2's most decisive battle (There is no doubt it was an important one) unless there was a reason to believe that:
a) Losing it would knock Britain out of the war.
b) It could actually be lost.
There is nothing to indicate that Britain had any intention of giving up irrespective of the result and given the number pilots and aircrew coming into Britain via Commonwealth Air Training Schools it is unlikely that the RAF would ever have been out of action for very long.
The only way to have genuinely defeated the RAF would have been to deprive them of airfields via invasion which couldn't be done because because of the dominance of the Royal Navy and given that much of the Kriegsmarine was sitting at the bottom of Norwegian fjords and that the Luftwaffe had failed to cause any significant damage on the Royal Navy during the withdrawal from Dunkirk I think it fair to say that Britain was in no real danger of invasion.
a) Losing it would knock Britain out of the war.
b) It could actually be lost.
There is nothing to indicate that Britain had any intention of giving up irrespective of the result and given the number pilots and aircrew coming into Britain via Commonwealth Air Training Schools it is unlikely that the RAF would ever have been out of action for very long.
The only way to have genuinely defeated the RAF would have been to deprive them of airfields via invasion which couldn't be done because because of the dominance of the Royal Navy and given that much of the Kriegsmarine was sitting at the bottom of Norwegian fjords and that the Luftwaffe had failed to cause any significant damage on the Royal Navy during the withdrawal from Dunkirk I think it fair to say that Britain was in no real danger of invasion.
Korean Seaboy
Active member
I go against the trend and vote for Moscow. Although Stalingrad and Kursk did help a lot, I believe the battle of Moscow was the exact turning point for the war. When the Germans were pushed out of Moscow, it was the beginning of the Allies part of the war
I did not know this is still debated:-?,and why:-?,because it is obvious that none of the battles that were debated,were "decisive " (curiously enough,every one has made the beginners mistake of not defining "decisive).Why were none decisive :because,in a total war,no battle can be decisive .
Let's take some exemples :
Moscow :if the city had fallen in november 1941,the results would be minime ,the Germans would not advance farther to the east,and,in december,the Russians would start their winteroffensive . Degree of decisiveness :0
Stalingrad :if the city had fallen in september 1942,the results would be minime,the Germans would not advance farther to the east,and,in november,the Russians would start their winteroffensive (Uranus)
Kursk
ne of the countless battles of WWII,with few German losses:54000 men and 250 tanks.If the Germans had won,the Russians would nevertheless have launched their counter offensives(Kutuzov,Orel,and others).
And some other questions :was there any decisive battle in WWI (possible exception:the Marne),in the US Civil War ,in the wars of the French republic and Bonaparte ?IMHO :NOT
Let's take some exemples :
Moscow :if the city had fallen in november 1941,the results would be minime ,the Germans would not advance farther to the east,and,in december,the Russians would start their winteroffensive . Degree of decisiveness :0
Stalingrad :if the city had fallen in september 1942,the results would be minime,the Germans would not advance farther to the east,and,in november,the Russians would start their winteroffensive (Uranus)
Kursk
ne of the countless battles of WWII,with few German losses:54000 men and 250 tanks.If the Germans had won,the Russians would nevertheless have launched their counter offensives(Kutuzov,Orel,and others).And some other questions :was there any decisive battle in WWI (possible exception:the Marne),in the US Civil War ,in the wars of the French republic and Bonaparte ?IMHO :NOT
Partisan
Active member
Decisive? Every battle has an outcome, or decision!
For me Overlord, it not opened a second front against Germany on the European mainland, but it also forced the Germans to acknowledge that Festung Europa could not protect, as the Maginot had failed the French.
Once they were strategically divided it was a matter of time, because each front gobbled up resources and men, whilst restricting access to - resources and men.
For me Overlord, it not opened a second front against Germany on the European mainland, but it also forced the Germans to acknowledge that Festung Europa could not protect, as the Maginot had failed the French.
Once they were strategically divided it was a matter of time, because each front gobbled up resources and men, whilst restricting access to - resources and men.
Victum Romanus
Active member
I think that the turning point in this war was Operation Barbarossa, Stalingrad, Moscow and Pearl Harbour.
When the Japanese started one of the worlds best military attacks at Pearl Harbour in 7. December the war turned into a world war.
When Hitler decided to invade Sovjet, the fate of the axis where concealed once and for all. A two front war is really something you want have.
Stalingrad, battle of Moscow and the battle of Kursk where also decisive. Hitler and the third reich lost huge amounts of lives and resources.
When the Japanese started one of the worlds best military attacks at Pearl Harbour in 7. December the war turned into a world war.
When Hitler decided to invade Sovjet, the fate of the axis where concealed once and for all. A two front war is really something you want have.
Stalingrad, battle of Moscow and the battle of Kursk where also decisive. Hitler and the third reich lost huge amounts of lives and resources.
Last edited:
to say that when Hitler attacked the SU,the fate of the axis was concealed,is to follow a deterministic POV,and that's wrong
n 22 june 1941,no one could foerecast the issue;there were even a lot of people in the UK and the USA who were very sceptick on the chances of the SU .I have to disagree on the assumption that the Third Reich lost huge amounts of lives and resources at Kursk :The Germans lost 54182 men and 252 tanks at Kursk;for the whole of 1943,the losses on the eastfront were some 1.6 million .
Doppleganger
Active member
I'm not sure I fully follow your logic. The Moscow battle was probably Germany's only chance to quickly knock the Soviet Union out of the war. You vastly understate the importance of that. The battles that follow; Kharkov, Stalingrad, Rzhev, Kursk, Bagration, Berlin, are all as a direct result of the outcome of that battle and they were generally battles that suited the Red Army rather than the Ostheer. In essence, the failure of Moscow drew the Germans into a slugging, resource-draining war of attrition they would not be favoured to win in the long run.I did not know this is still debated:-?,and why:-?,because it is obvious that none of the battles that were debated,were "decisive " (curiously enough,every one has made the beginners mistake of not defining "decisive).Why were none decisive :because,in a total war,no battle can be decisive .
Let's take some exemples :
Moscow :if the city had fallen in november 1941,the results would be minime ,the Germans would not advance farther to the east,and,in december,the Russians would start their winteroffensive . Degree of decisiveness :0
Stalingrad :if the city had fallen in september 1942,the results would be minime,the Germans would not advance farther to the east,and,in november,the Russians would start their winteroffensive (Uranus)
Kursk
That's why Moscow was decisive. It largely determined that the war in the East would not be over in one season. It changed the war in the east into something that suited the strengths of the Red Army and the Soviet Union over those of the Wehrmacht and Germany. It allowed the time for the Soviets to mobilise and deploy replacements for their huge losses in 1941 and those huge losses to come in the following 3 years. It allowed the time for the Red Army to consolidate their war effort in the East and build a large strategic reserve of manpower, which would prove decisive.
Actually, I could narrow things down further. I would state that the ability of the Red Army to maintain and utilize a strategic reserve was the decisive factor for victory in Europe in WW2.
I am starting from another POV :it is not because that AFTER the battle for Moscow,the war in the East was not finished,that it was BECAUSE of the battle for Moscow (in Latin 
ost hoc is not propter hoc).It never has been proved that the fall of Moscow would cause the collaps of the SU .
The German plan to win the war in 1941 was to be at the A-A line before the winter(Moscow was not mentioned),well,on 1 september (before the battle of Moscow),it was obvious,that there was no chance to reach the A-A line,even if Moscow was captured .
That the SU survived in 1941,was due to the summerbattlesn 1 september,the Red army was stronger than on 22 june,and on 1 december it was stronger than on 1 september (3 million,4 million,4.6 million),even if Moscow had fallen in november,there still would be a Red army of 4.6 million in november and the Germans could never destroy that army:it would be winter,and the Germans were exhausted .
ost hoc is not propter hoc).It never has been proved that the fall of Moscow would cause the collaps of the SU .The German plan to win the war in 1941 was to be at the A-A line before the winter(Moscow was not mentioned),well,on 1 september (before the battle of Moscow),it was obvious,that there was no chance to reach the A-A line,even if Moscow was captured .
That the SU survived in 1941,was due to the summerbattles
n 1 september,the Red army was stronger than on 22 june,and on 1 december it was stronger than on 1 september (3 million,4 million,4.6 million),even if Moscow had fallen in november,there still would be a Red army of 4.6 million in november and the Germans could never destroy that army:it would be winter,and the Germans were exhausted .