Most decisive battle in WW2?

Most decisive battle in WW2?

  • Total voters
    60
Stalingrad was the most defining battle of WWII in the ETO, Midway in the PTO.

Overlord was on June 6 1944 but by then the war was already lost for the Germans, the Germans knew this as far back as 1943. The German knew that to defeat the USSR they were going to have to go for the quick knockout blow, they knew that they would lose a slugging match with the Soviets due to the vast numerical+industrial superiority of the Red Army. The Russians could replace losses, the Germans couldn't.

The Failure to break the Soviet back at Stalingrad accomplished two things.

1. Bought the Red Army time to bolster forces and replace losses suffered during Barbarossa and bring the full might of the the Red Army down on the Germans.

2. Destroyed the creme of the Wehrmacht forces. The loss of 6th Army including some of the very best German divisions such as Hoth's Panzer Division and the Luftwaffe Transport Divisions. The units would be sorely missed.
 
Stalingrad is overrated as a decisive battle of WW2. It's true that the best part of the largest field army in the Wehrmacht was lost and it's also true that the loss of 6th Army represented men and equipment that the Germans could not hope to replace. Incidentally, only 1 korps of Hoth's 4th Panzer Army was lost and well over half of the Axis losses consisted of satellite armies from Romania, Italy and Hungary.

More importantly however, was the fact that by that time it was clear that the Germans could no longer defeat the Soviet Union. A decisive event is generally regarded as an event that determines an outcome and as it was already clear that the Soviet Union would at least draw in early 1943, Stalingrad cannot really be considered as a decisive battle. Stalingrad was, understandably, turned into a propaganda victory by the USSR and it is for that reason that it retains its mystique.

The Battle of Moscow, largely forgotten by most casual observers, was one of the true turning points of WW2 and my pick.
 
Doppleganger said:
Stalingrad is overrated as a decisive battle of WW2. It's true that the best part of the largest field army in the Wehrmacht was lost and it's also true that the loss of 6th Army represented men and equipment that the Germans could not hope to replace. Incidentally, only 1 korps of Hoth's 4th Panzer Army was lost and well over half of the Axis losses consisted of satellite armies from Romania, Italy and Hungary.

More importantly however, was the fact that by that time it was clear that the Germans could no longer defeat the Soviet Union. A decisive event is generally regarded as an event that determines an outcome and as it was already clear that the Soviet Union would at least draw in early 1943, Stalingrad cannot really be considered as a decisive battle. Stalingrad was, understandably, turned into a propaganda victory by the USSR and it is for that reason that it retains its mystique.

The Battle of Moscow, largely forgotten by most casual observers, was one of the true turning points of WW2 and my pick.
Click to expand...


Surely by your own definitions Moscow cannot be considered decisive unless you believe that the war was lost to the Germans after that point.

Lets be realistic here the only thing that stopped the Germans capturing Stalingrad intact and almost without a fight was the decision to stop and rest the 6th army outside the city as up until that point the German summer operations were moving along nicely.

If we are going to speculate on crucial points I would suggest that the failure to capture Leningrad and free up AGN for further eastward operations was probably just as important as the failure to capture Moscow.

So from this casual observers point of view I have not ruled out Moscow I just don't agree on its importance.
 
Last edited:
Each Battle in it's own way was important in winning the war, I think one one of the most important ones in the European Zone was the Battle Of Britain for if Britain had fallen, Hitler would have taken the whole of Ireland as well and mad it almost impossible for an attack to have taken place to retake Europe. If Britain had fallen the Spain would have joined in with Hitler and Taken Gibraltar which would have closed up the Mediterranean so the Suez Canal and the oil fields would have fallen into Germany's hand. Hitler could then have attacked Russia a bit later on with a far bigger Army that Stalin might have been unable to stop it, as there would not have been the number of troops require in Africa or Norway or in air defence to protect the father land. Which would mean that Hitler might have had another two million men to throw into the battle in Russia
 
MontyB said:
Surely by your own definitions Moscow cannot be considered decisive unless you believe that the war was lost to the Germans after that point.

Lets be realistic here the only thing that stopped the Germans capturing Stalingrad intact and almost without a fight was the decision to stop and rest the 6th army outside the city as up until that point the German summer operations were moving along nicely.

If we are going to speculate on crucial points I would suggest that the failure to capture Leningrad and free up AGN for further eastward operations was probably just as important as the failure to capture Moscow.

So from this casual observers point of view I have not ruled out Moscow I just don't agree on its importance.
Click to expand...

The war was not winnable for Germany after the successful Moscow counter-offensive by the Red Army in December/January 1941. I did not hold this view before but have now revised my previous opinion. As I've stated a few times before for Germany to win they either had to:

A) Capture Moscow and hope that it would cause an internal collapse of the Soviet regime

OR

b) Halt after the Kiev operation until Spring 1942 and try for Moscow in a 2nd season campaign

The Germans chose A) and failed. Their only hope thereafter was to bleed the Red Army white and force a stalemate which Stalin seemed at various points to be agreeable to.

As far as Stalingrad goes 4th Panzer Army could have captured the city almost without a fight in July, 1942. Hitler's dithering caused a huge traffic jam between 1st and 4th Panzer Armies which held both Armies up for a fortnight, allowing the Soviets to gather just enough forces to prevent any quick capture of Stalingrad. Case Blau was also hopelessly optimistic as a quick look at a map of the southern Soviet Union will confirm.

The failure to capture Leningrad was a setback but it did not in itself determine the outcome of the war in the East. Therefore, it cannot be considered decisive.
 
Doppleganger said:
The war was not winnable for Germany after the successful Moscow counter-offensive by the Red Army in December/January 1941. I did not hold this view before but have now revised my previous opinion. As I've stated a few times before for Germany to win they either had to:

A) Capture Moscow and hope that it would cause an internal collapse of the Soviet regime

OR

b) Halt after the Kiev operation until Spring 1942 and try for Moscow in a 2nd season campaign

The Germans chose A) and failed. Their only hope thereafter was to bleed the Red Army white and force a stalemate which Stalin seemed at various points to be agreeable to.

As far as Stalingrad goes 4th Panzer Army could have captured the city almost without a fight in July, 1942. Hitler's dithering caused a huge traffic jam between 1st and 4th Panzer Armies which held both Armies up for a fortnight, allowing the Soviets to gather just enough forces to prevent any quick capture of Stalingrad. Case Blau was also hopelessly optimistic as a quick look at a map of the southern Soviet Union will confirm.

The failure to capture Leningrad was a setback but it did not in itself determine the outcome of the war in the East. Therefore, it cannot be considered decisive.
Click to expand...


I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one as I believe that over all the failure to capture Leningrad was at least as big a setback as the failure to capture Moscow if not bigger as it would have freed up the men and material to facilitate the capture of Moscow.

I also believe that had Stalingrad been taken while it was "undefended" it would have made the position of Russian forces to the south of the city almost untenable due to the loss of Stalingrad's communications and supply links thus making "Case Blau" a much more viable campaign and more than likely resulting in eventual Russian capitulation through lack of fuel.

LeEnfield said:
Each Battle in it's own way was important in winning the war, I think one one of the most important ones in the European Zone was the Battle Of Britain for if Britain had fallen, Hitler would have taken the whole of Ireland as well and mad it almost impossible for an attack to have taken place to retake Europe. If Britain had fallen the Spain would have joined in with Hitler and Taken Gibraltar which would have closed up the Mediterranean so the Suez Canal and the oil fields would have fallen into Germany's hand. Hitler could then have attacked Russia a bit later on with a far bigger Army that Stalin might have been unable to stop it, as there would not have been the number of troops require in Africa or Norway or in air defence to protect the father land. Which would mean that Hitler might have had another two million men to throw into the battle in Russia
Click to expand...

This has been a view I have held for quite a while although recently I have read some theories that having Britain in the war was what gave Germany the initial element of surprise as Stalin did not believe Germany would fight a war on two fronts, it is thought that he expected war with Germany but only after Britain had been taken out of it and therefore did not give Allied warnings and intelligence reports any credence in fact he saw Allied warnings as an attempt to drive a wedge in the Russo-German alliance.
 
Last edited:
Not necessarily as even with two votes one battle must still stand out as the most decisive.

I also thought there were already threads for most decisive of the European and Pacific theaters (I may be wrong on this though).
 
WW2 has been described as two separate wars, one would have occurred without the other so I could see the logic in having two votes. I guess Midway would stand out in the Pacific theatre though.

Coming back to the European theatre, perhaps the battle of the Atlantic and even the BEF evacuation at Dunkirk was highly decisive. Without either going in favour of the Allies the German Western front could have been secured, leading to a potentially different outcome in the East.
 
perseus said:
WW2 has been described as two separate wars, one would have occurred without the other so I could see the logic in having two votes. I guess Midway would stand out in the Pacific theatre though.

Coming back to the European theatre, perhaps the battle of the Atlantic and even the BEF evacuation at Dunkirk was highly decisive. Without either going in favour of the Allies the German Western front could have been secured, leading to a potentially different outcome in the East.
Click to expand...

I am not so sure about Dunkirk as although it was an impressive feat it cannot be considered decisive if the Germans had no way to to exploit the problem and I think it is fair to say that their ability to cross the channel even without the British army getting home was extremely limited.
 
MontyB said:
I am not so sure about Dunkirk as although it was an impressive feat it cannot be considered decisive if the Germans had no way to to exploit the problem and I think it is fair to say that their ability to cross the channel even without the British army getting home was extremely limited.
Click to expand...

Monty I'm sure we have agreed on the military side before, but of course this could have forced a political change. Granted, whether a non - occupied neutral Britain would secure the Western front is debatable.
 
MontyB said:
I am not so sure about Dunkirk as although it was an impressive feat it cannot be considered decisive if the Germans had no way to to exploit the problem and I think it is fair to say that their ability to cross the channel even without the British army getting home was extremely limited.
Click to expand...
I agree. The outcome of this battle did not decide anything at all.
 
perseus said:
Coming back to the European theatre, perhaps the battle of the Atlantic and even the BEF evacuation at Dunkirk was highly decisive. Without either going in favour of the Allies the German Western front could have been secured, leading to a potentially different outcome in the East.
Click to expand...

People seem to overlook the importance of Dunkirk. The thing is if the Germans had gotten the BEF there Britian would probably be out of the war. The whole thing is people see is as just another footnote in the Battle of France but it was key in the outcome. Without Britian in the war there would have been no Africa/Balkans/Italy/Western fronts to deal with and no USA involved and last but not least no USAF/RAF bombers blowing the hell out out industrial centers.

And I think you would have a much different outcome in the east.

To make a long story short you made a real good point.
 
Not to be so confrontational in my first post but while I agree with most of what Easy says about Dunkirk, I wouldn't look on it as a battle. Dunkirk's aim was to remove the BEF and French forces from a trap - which it succeeded fairly well. That objective is very different from the main objectives of the battles in the poll. But I will agree that Dunkirk - within its purpose - was a major influence of events.

I have to disagee with Dopple on Stalingrad. I picked that as I believe it was the first major setback (excepting BoB) for the Wehrmacht. Granted, Moscow was important, but I don't believe it was two fighters coming to a stale-mate but rather a matter of Hitler messing around with objectives and the good 'ol weather.
 
Njaco said:
I have to disagee with Dopple on Stalingrad. I picked that as I believe it was the first major setback (excepting BoB) for the Wehrmacht. Granted, Moscow was important, but I don't believe it was two fighters coming to a stale-mate but rather a matter of Hitler messing around with objectives and the good 'ol weather.
Click to expand...
The Battle of Moscow was a far bigger setback for Germany than the Battle of Britain ever was. Perhaps you are not aware but Army Group Centre, which contained the cream of the Panzer and motorized units, was pushed back 200 miles and almost routed. This was partly due to the weather, but mostly due to the fact that the Germans over-extended themselves and then were counter-attacked by fresher, better equipped troops. Hitler's 'meddling' back in July may have saved Army Group Centre from taking large casualties even before they were even in a position to push towards Moscow.

Hitler's logic to take Kiev before Moscow was based on sound military principles that the German Army (and other armies) had followed for over 100 years. That is to operate assuming the following priorities :
  1. Destroy the enemy armies in the field
  2. Seize economic and industrial resources
  3. Capture prestige targets
The Kiev operation clearly fell under 1 and 2 whereas targeting Moscow fell under mainly 3. Who is to say Hitler was wrong?
 
I have no qualms about the importance of the Battle of Moskow - it was an major battle but I'm not so sure it was such a devastating blow as Stalingrad was. I think that by the time the Soviets counterattacked, Hitler already had his mind set for the Crimea and the oil and set his army in that direction. Giving up Moskow as an objective was in the long run an upset but Stalingrad was the electric shock.
 
We'll have to disagree there then mate. What happened at the Battle of Moscow nearly routed the most powerful Army Group in the entire German Army, consisting of 5 field armies including 2 panzer armies, whereas at Stalingrad it was 'just' a single Army. We know Stalingrad so well in the West because the Soviets, understandably, turned it into a huge propaganda statement. Not just because the city was named after Stalin but also because it was seen as a contest of wills between Hitler and Stalin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top