Most decisive battle in WW2?

Most decisive battle in WW2?

  • Total voters
    60
lljadw said:
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 .
Click to expand...

Agreed, even if the Luftwaffe had won the BoB the RAF would have operated from bases further north and opposed any landings further to that the Kriegsmarine was incapable of supporting and resupplying Sealion even with the Luftwaffe in control over the chanel as the Royal Navy was just too strong.

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

Hitler was an ideologue and the entire focus of his ideology was living space in the east and the destruction of the Soviet Union there was no way in hell Germany was not going to attack Russia.
 
I agree with LeEnfield regarding the Battle of Britain, I would also add the Battle of El Alamein, if Britain had lost North Africa the oil fields in the Middle east would have been wide open and would add another direction to attack the SU.
 
BritinAfrica said:
I agree with LeEnfield regarding the Battle of Britain, I would also add the Battle of El Alamein, if Britain had lost North Africa the oil fields in the Middle east would have been wide open and would add another direction to attack the SU.
Click to expand...

To be honest I think it was somewhat of a German flight of fancy that Rommel could have attacked Russia via the middle east, the logistics train from Berlin to Moscow was too much for the Germans, supplying a 4th spearhead into Russia via the middle east would have been a nightmare that was well beyond German capabilities.

Further to this the North African campaign was never going to be a winning one for Germany as no matter how far they went they still at some point would have had to have dealt with South Africa and India which were huge supply bases for Britain, basically no matter how far the Germans went in the region the British were falling back on stronger supply lines.

However I did mention that perhaps Lljadw had things around the wrong way in that all of the battles listed were decisive in one way or another but none of them singly determined the outcome of the war.
 
Last edited:
If the British had been pushed out of North Africa the Med would have been under German and Italian control, logistics via Italy to the middle east to the SU could have been far easier then supplying via Eastern Europe.
 
Never could figure why Germany declared war on the US , or Japan, for that matter. I always wondered what would have happened if we'd sided with the Germans and the Japs. hehe My family is still pissed at the Brits for burning down their farm and forcing them to live with the Indians back in the 1780's.
 
Hutchie said:
Never could figure why Germany declared war on the US , or Japan, for that matter. I always wondered what would have happened if we'd sided with the Germans and the Japs. hehe My family is still pissed at the Brits for burning down their farm and forcing them to live with the Indians back in the 1780's.
Click to expand...


The funny thing is that you may have got your wish had the Russians attacked the Poles first.
 
Hutchie.......You lost a farm my relations lost New York and Rhode Island, my cousin was William Brenton who owned both at one time
 
MontyB said:
To be honest I think it was somewhat of a German flight of fancy that Rommel could have attacked Russia via the middle east, the logistics train from Berlin to Moscow was too much for the Germans, supplying a 4th spearhead into Russia via the middle east would have been a nightmare that was well beyond German capabilities.

Further to this the North African campaign was never going to be a winning one for Germany as no matter how far they went they still at some point would have had to have dealt with South Africa and India which were huge supply bases for Britain, basically no matter how far the Germans went in the region the British were falling back on stronger supply lines.

However I did mention that perhaps Lljadw had things around the wrong way in that all of the battles listed were decisive in one way or another but none of them singly determined the outcome of the war.
Click to expand...


As there were no battles which decided the outcome of WWII/WWI,one can not speak of decisive battles .
 
MontyB said:
Agreed, even if the Luftwaffe had won the BoB the RAF would have operated from bases further north and opposed any landings further to that the Kriegsmarine was incapable of supporting and resupplying Sealion even with the Luftwaffe in control over the chanel as the Royal Navy was just too strong.



Hitler was an ideologue and the entire focus of his ideology was living space in the east and the destruction of the Soviet Union there was no way in hell Germany was not going to attack Russia.
Click to expand...


This is a strawman : the question is not if Hitler would/would not attack the SU,but if the motivation of Barbarossa was ideological ot military .

And,I stick to my claim that during the discussions about Barbarossa,there were no declarations by Hitler that are indicating that Barbarossa was ideologically motivated .
 
A lot of military aid went into Russia via the middle east as well as by sea via the Northern route. Had Germany taken North Africa first then it could have turned its full might onto Russia instead of fighting on two fronts. Germany lost as many troops in North Africa as they did in Stalingrad.
 
Kurst,
The battle of Kurst came after the Germans last big victory the retaking or Kharkov and Belgorod. The Russian got all the intelligence and played the right card and stayed and build up the defensives while concentrating 1/2 the Red army in the bulge. Idiot Hitler insisted on attacking the Kurst salient despite much protest and in the south fought a very good fight but due to the slower movement than he wanted and the fact he pulled panzers to fight the Sicily invasion the Red army finally overwhelmed them. Although it was a bloodbath from Kurst to Berlin for the most the Red army had the initiative for the remainder of the war. Kurst was the turning point. Also it was likely the biggest battle of WW2 for the sheer amount of men and machines that confronted each other simultaneously.
 
But if as many have argued the war in Russia was lost by the end of 1941 Kursk could not have been the most decisive battle (I am defining "decisive" as the turning point battle) it would have had to have been closer to Moscow time frame.

Personally I went with Stalingrad but I am beginning to think Leningrad may have been closer to reality.
 
I'll stick with Kurst. Before Kurst the USSR was on shaky ground as far war went. Some winter advances but overall not in a commanding position on the eastern front.
 
AVON said:
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!


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.
Click to expand...

The Soviet winter Offensive of 42 resulted in a severe beating for the Soviets with the loss of 100,000's of men. This occurred after operation Uranus I.e., battle for Moscow.
 
Last edited:
MontyB said:
But if as many have argued the war in Russia was lost by the end of 1941 Kursk could not have been the most decisive battle (I am defining "decisive" as the turning point battle) it would have had to have been closer to Moscow time frame.

Personally I went with Stalingrad but I am beginning to think Leningrad may have been closer to reality.
Click to expand...

How do you figure Leningrad since this Soviet victory took place in 44?
 
JOC said:
How do you figure Leningrad since this Soviet victory took place in 44?
Click to expand...

Because Leningrad was the end point of Army Group North, had it have fallen along with the Kola peninsula Army Group North would have provided the reserve for the other two Army Groups as it was it spent most of the war laying siege to one city.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top