Most decisive battle in WW2?

Most decisive battle in WW2?

  • Total voters
    60
Korean Seaboy said:
Yes, I agree that Midway was one of the most decisive battles in WWII, but I still stand firmly on my position that Moscow was the most decisive.
Click to expand...
I can't disagree with that. To the Soviets, the war was something that was fought on a daily basis. To the western allies, many days or weeks had no significant ground combat The Soviet spy Richard Sorge (NOTE) found out the Japanese only planned a limited incursion into the Soviet Union. When Stalin was sure Sorge's information was valid, many Soviet Army divisions were transferred from being prepared to fight the Japanese on the eastern front to the western front against Germany.
NOTE;
Richard Sorge was the Soviet spy in Tokyo who found out in October of 1941, that the Japanese planned to attack "Pearl Harbor" (by name) in the first week of December! The information was passed to Moscow which forwarded it to Washington!

Korean Seaboy said:
It was the turning point of the war, when Soviet forces finally stopped the once invincible German war machine
Click to expand...
Yes, after the Battle for Moscow all major battle were won by the Soviet Union.

I have never come across any information on what the Soviet military planned to do concerning the invasion of Japan beyond the Kuril Islands.
 
All were inportant battles, no doubt about that.

Wonder why no one votes leningrad frankly. They stopped the german advance in the northern front. I think they were sieged for over a year if memory isn't failing me.

Anyway i voted for other, namely the battle of britain. A handfull of pilots defended the only non german-occupated land. Without england = no D-Day and no second front to draw forces away from russian front.
 
I don't think people over look Leningrad but Leningrad was unique in that it did not stop the German advance but instead the German advance stopped to besiege it.

The aim of the Germans at Leningrad was starve the city and then demolish it rather than capture it in fact early in the campaign they could have taken it.

September 12: Hitler: “Leningrad will be starved into submission”


The last overland connections with the city were severed in early September. Leningrad and its population of 3 million were under siege, with enough food for one month. A trickle of supplies was hauled across Lake Ladoga. Terrible hunger set in. The German forces encamped on the outskirts of town for a protracted siege. Hitler forbade his commanders to accept a surrender. Leningrad and its population, Hitler ordered, would be bombed and shelled to death. Although Hitler’s plan was not carried out in full, by the time the siege was lifted and Leningrad liberated in January 1944, an estimated million inhabitants had died of severe hardship and horrifying starvation.
 
Last edited:
When you read about all battles that Russia took part in they were on a massive scale, running into millions of men. There was also that huge battle in the Crimea which swallowed up 250.000 Germans. Then there was that huge drive to Berlin where they just smashed there way through. There was also the Russian attack on the Japanese in China where they wiped the Japanese out in two weeks. When you take all the conflicts that Russia was involved with then you have to stand admire just what they achieved.
 
The term" Axis" was a clever propaganda ploy. The Berlin - Rome - Tokyo Axis, in fact, existed only as a propaganda term. There was just about no cooperation between the partners and Italy was probably more trouble than it was worth as an ally.
In fact, it could be said that they actually worked against each other as much as anything. Mussolini invaded Greece without even informing Hitler, got into trouble and had to ask for help to keep from being defeated by the poorly equipped Greek Army. That campaign delayed the beginning of the Russian invasion by some weeks, and if it wasn't a fatal blow, it certainly didn't help.
Later, German troops had to disarm and demobilize the Italian Army when Italy surrendered to the Allies.
The Japanese had their own agenda and had no intention of helping Hitler by invading the Soviet Union.
After Stalingrad some of Germany's allies like Romania and neutrals like Spain started to re-think their position.
So Germany's allies didn't prop up Germany, it was the other way around.
 
Remington 1858 said:
The term" Axis" was a clever propaganda ploy. The Berlin - Rome - Tokyo Axis, in fact, existed only as a propaganda term. There was just about no cooperation between the partners and Italy was probably more trouble than it was worth as an ally.
In fact, it could be said that they actually worked against each other as much as anything. Mussolini invaded Greece without even informing Hitler, got into trouble and had to ask for help to keep from being defeated by the poorly equipped Greek Army. That campaign delayed the beginning of the Russian invasion by some weeks, and if it wasn't a fatal blow, it certainly didn't help.
Later, German troops had to disarm and demobilize the Italian Army when Italy surrendered to the Allies.
The Japanese had their own agenda and had no intention of helping Hitler by invading the Soviet Union.
After Stalingrad some of Germany's allies like Romania and neutrals like Spain started to re-think their position.
So Germany's allies didn't prop up Germany, it was the other way around.
Click to expand...

Erich von Manstein stated in his memoirs that of all Germany's allies only the Romanians had the potential to be trained to German standards, he regarded Romanian troops highly although thought they were poorly educated and badly led and equipped.

If I could find my copy of his memoirs I would give you the exact comments.

As for the Italians well to placate the Italians amongst us I will agree that there were units that fought extremely well but on the whole the Italian war effort was generally abysmal.
 
I don't know why after all these years,people still are talking about decisive battles: a lot of battles were important in WWII/WWI,but none was decisive .

Let's take Midway : was it important ? Yes: it was a big blow for Japan,was it decisive ? No :it decided nothing .

If Japan had won at Midway,would the result be that US woud have stopped the war,or that Japan would parade in Washington ?

US won at Midway;was this causing the Japanese surrender in 1945 ?
 
If the Japanese had made Port Moresby, they would of made life harder for America. There was a reason why the US navy, after the US military run away with thier tail between thier legs from the Phillippenes, made home in NZ. This would of changed alot of things, one of them was the ability to effect the american successful submarine operations. America would of been very busy defending her sea lane to Australia. The battle for moresby ran for quite some time, 4 attempted invasions.Three from the land, one from the sea.

This battle was more desivive than overlord. Overlord was a progression,not a battle.Germans were beat long before this.
 
Harder yes but it would not have changed the outcome, it may not have even prolonged the war as that was pretty much decided by the battles in the central Pacific.
By the time of the battles in New Guinea Japan was at the very end of its logistics capability and could go no further.
 
pottsy said:
If the Japanese had made Port Moresby, they would of made life harder for America. There was a reason why the US navy, after the US military run away with thier tail between thier legs from the Phillippenes, made home in NZ. This would of changed alot of things, one of them was the ability to effect the american successful submarine operations. America would of been very busy defending her sea lane to Australia. The battle for moresby ran for quite some time, 4 attempted invasions.Three from the land, one from the sea.

This battle was more desivive than overlord. Overlord was a progression,not a battle.Germans were beat long before this.
Click to expand...

The difference is that Japan from the first day on,was fighting to not to lose, it was not fighting to win :the ail of Japan was not to parade along the Pennsylvania Avenue :the US had to parade in Tokyo .

As such,defeat or victory at Midway changed nothing.
 
MontyB said:
Harder yes but it would not have changed the outcome, it may not have even prolonged the war as that was pretty much decided by the battles in the central Pacific.
By the time of the battles in New Guinea Japan was at the very end of its logistics capability and could go no further.
Click to expand...
I gather you're unaware of the camapign against Japanese shipping by american submariners,i gather you're unawre of just what the Japanese were trying to do in the pacific. the moresby battle was quite full on, a close run thing.the americans actualy made some pretty silly decisions during this battle, Had japan made Moresby ,Guadacanal would of been lost. The americans used brisbane as thier jumping off point once the japanese had been checked. had the Japanese made moresby, brisbane would of been flattened. with the aquisition of moresby more of the japnese larger naval vessels would of been operating in the area, would of needed to be dealt with. America were a few years from being able to do that.

Anyway I was making the point that this battle was more significant than overlord, which it was. overlord was origonaly planned to be carried a year earlier, with 3 times the men, but because of battles like moresby it was able to be delayed and scaled down to suit political policies.

lljadw said:
The difference is that Japan from the first day on,was fighting to not to lose, it was not fighting to win :the ail of Japan was not to parade along the Pennsylvania Avenue :the US had to parade in Tokyo .

As such,defeat or victory at Midway changed nothing.
Click to expand...

They were seeking the same thing germany was with britian. They did not war, but they had to check the ability of those nations to make war on them. Japs did all they could to cut american/british/french influence
 
lljadw said:
As usual,some people think that insults are replacing arguments .
Click to expand...

You call that insulting? As I said its pointless even attempting to get into a sensible discussion with you.

Quite frankly some of your arguments are idiotic to say the least.
 
The Battle Of Britain was one of those battles that changed the course of the war. If Britain had lost that Battle and had been invaded that would have meant that there would have been no D Day into Europe. North Africa would have fallen and Israel would have never happened. Germany would have then been able to turn its full might on Russia and would have been successful. So in my book one of the most important battles was BoB
 
I have to object

1) The Battle of Britain and the Invasion of Britain (Sealion) were 2 different things : even if Britain had lost the Battle of Britain (for which there was no danger at all) ,Sealion would be impossible .


2)If Britain was out, I see no reasons for Germany to attack the SU


3) If they still attacked the SU,I don't see the Germans being stronger than in the OTL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top