@ABWorsham4 probably still scared the starving civilians , carrying rifles and 2 bullets each, half to death at the time though .
Most decisive battle of the Second World War
-
After reflection I would say Pearl Harbor was the most decisive battle. Without Pearl Harbor America doesn’t enter the war for another year or more if ever.
-
Midway has to be the turning point in the Pacific. Pearl Harbor was the turning point in the European conflict. Thats when hitler declared war on the U.S. This ought to generate some interesting comments.
After reflection I would say Pearl Harbor was the most decisive battle. Without Pearl Harbor America doesn’t enter the war for another year or more if ever.
Amazing. Someone agrees with me.
-
After reflection I would say Pearl Harbor was the most decisive battle. Without Pearl Harbor America doesn’t enter the war for another year or more if ever.
Again, we’re getting into the Undefeatable America argument here. I agree with the sentiments of American exceptionalism, but to say that because America entered the war it was a lost cause for the Axis is, I think, a little premature. Yes, the happening of Pearl Harbor on Dec 7 1941 generated one of many possible outcomes for the war. However, I do not believe that the Axis were doomed from that day on. American presence in the European war really didn’t show until at least 1943. And their gains in the Pacific in 1942 had little bearing on the European war.
Pearl Harbor was (a) not much of a battle and (b) decisive only if the Axis were fated to lose once the Americans joined the fight. I don’t really believe that. Come Overlord and the successful landing at Normandy… then I will say the outcome was totally assured. But nothing is certain in war, at least up to that point of uncontestability.
America’s contribution was totally essential I believe. Whether America saved the day or not, I am still out on… (did America defeat the Axis, more than any other Ally)… but I do not believe that Germany or Japan could have done nothing which would have caused a negotiated peace.
-
Again, we’re getting into the Undefeatable America argument here. I agree with the sentiments of American exceptionalism, but to say that because America entered the war it was a lost cause for the Axis is, I think, a little premature. Yes, the happening of Pearl Harbor on Dec 7 1941 generated one of many possible outcomes for the war. However, I do not believe that the Axis were doomed from that day on. American presence in the European war really didn’t show until at least 1943. And their gains in the Pacific in 1942 had little bearing on the European war.
Richard Overy looks at this whole issue in his book Why The Allies Won. He says that there was nothing inevitable about the Allied victory, and that it’s simplistic to argue that Germany was doomed as soon as it faced the combination of Russia’s huge pool of manpower and America’s vast economic and industrial resources. The Allies had to fight long and hard for their victory, at a great cost in lives and treasure. They had to learn to fight effectively, using proper tactics and proper equipment; they had to define their strategic objectives correctly, and had to learn to work together (particularly in the case of the British and the Americans, who got into some lengthy squabbles over how the war in the west should be conducted); and they had to sustain the morale of their populations through a long, tough war that made exceptional demands on everyone. An Allied victory was by no means assured in 1942, and it would not have happened if the Allies had not learned from their early defeats. And even by 1944, by which point the Allied material advantage had become overwhelming and it was clear that the Allies would certainly win if they maintained their resolve to fight, final victory still depended on the Allies maintaining that determination – on their willingness to stick to the job to the bitter end, and to accept nothing short of the unconditional surrender they had defined as the only acceptable outcome.
-
Had Germany adopted a kinder approach to the Eastern front, thus gaining support of the people who, even during the war, were under the tyranical rule of Stalin, I think Germany could have pushed Stalin back to the Urals by the end of 1942. Or even with a victory at Moscow or later at Stalingrad. Having consolidated the vast resources of oil, food, industry, people, etc. of the Russians during 1942-43, I very much doubt the US and UK would have prevailed on Operation overlord, nor prevailed in Italy or anywhere else in German occupied Europe. Then, perhaps Germany doesn’t lose.
Perhaps Germany could even defeat the UK with a revised Operation Sealion, or a renewed submarine attack.
With Germany in full control of Europe, how could the Allies prevail? Possibly by the use of the atomic bomb, though I question if who would have aerial superiority in 1945 under this scenario even with the vast industrial resources of the US.
With Japan, I don’t see a way they could hold off the allies indefinitely (or even win) as is the case with Germany.
-
What was most decisive was lend-lease. Lend lease enabled the Soviet Union, despite fewer resources (Germans had more steel, minerals etc… with the exception of crude oil), could manage to outproduce the Germans in tanks, planes and particularly artillery. Especially in the years that mattered, 1942 and 1943.
The manpower pool of Germany and its allies, and considering Germany controlled large areas of the western Soviet Union pretty quickly, was no smaller than that of the Soviets. Of course, the Soviets had a one front war.
But it was military production, the quantity of tanks, planes and artillery (coupled with the fact that designs like the T-34 and the Il-2 Sturmovik were pretty decent to say the least) made the difference. Germany was low on tanks by the end of 1942 and also on planes and particularly on artillery. This is why Kursk failed so dramatically.
Lend lease contributed to the disparity between German and Soviet production of tanks, planes and artillery. Lend lease provided jeeps, trucks, aviation fuel, telegraph lines, locomotives, rolling stock, rails, canned spam, army boots etc… so the Soviets could focus on tanks and planes. Richard Overy’s “Russia’s war” mentions that even Stalin admitted in private that lend lease was decisive.
-
@13thguardsriflediv:
What was most decisive was lend-lease.
Okay… but we are talking battles not ‘agreements’ like Lend-Lease.
The Allies could make all the agreements they wanted, but the war was ultimately won on the battlefield.
-
Midway was the most decisive battle of WWII.
I could understand if someone said that the Russian Campaign (The Eastern Front) was the most decisive campaign, but Midway was the most decisive battle.
-
You could make a point that the The Battle of Dunkirk was the most important battle.
-
@ABWorsham:
You could make a point that the The Battle of Dunkirk was the most important battle.
That was barely a battle. More like a disorganized retreat.
Honestly… anyone can make the assertion that anything is ‘the most important battle’ … but I think we are getting away from the point of this thread at that point. We are talking about decisive, power swinging conflicts are we not? Not could have beens or if-this-then-this…
Actually the wording of this thread suggests that we are lloking for the most obvious winner of a battle… not necessarily the most tide-turning battle of the war. Though i believe we are all arguing over the most important battle.
-
@ABWorsham:
You could make a point that the The Battle of Dunkirk was the most important battle.
That was barely a battle. More like a disorganized retreat.
Honestly… anyone can make the assertion that anything is ‘the most important battle’ … but I think we are getting away from the point of this thread at that point. We are talking about decisive, power swinging conflicts are we not? Not could have beens or if-this-then-this…
Actually the wording of this thread suggests that we are lloking for the most obvious winner of a battle… not necessarily the most tide-turning battle of the war. Though i believe we are all arguing over the most important battle.
Decisive means “Settling an issue; producing a definite result.” Thus, the most decisive battle is the one that guaranteed the allied victory. In my mind, that is the invasion of Poland.
If we’re looking at the battle with the most obvious winner, that would have to be the battle of Kiska
-
I agree with the Battle of Britain.
If the battle of Britain had been lost then operation Sealion would have happened and there is little debate that the germans could have taken the island.
North Africa would have fallen.
Operation Barbarossa would have been delayed one or two more years, which is what the german generals originally wanted.
America would take much longer to get into the war without the use and aid of British bases and forces, they would also probably focus much more on the european theatre leaving Japan more unopposed and also have to liberate britain before taking france.
Therefore if we are talking single battles, the battle of britain was without a doubt the most Decisive.
-
i also agree the battle for britian was the beginning of the end for germany. not only didnt they take the uk, but then germany turns around and starts a war with russia, creating the old, 2 front war, which is very hard to win. :-)
-
@Weezer:
If the battle of Britain had been lost then operation Sealion would have happened and there is little debate that the germans could have taken the island.
Look at the invasion of France in 1944, the Allies had 5,000 ships to pull off an invasion and bad weather seriously hurt the ability to supply that army. How do you think German barges would fair in a battle with the Royal Navy? Germany’s navy could do little more than harass Allied shipping. A large part of the German navy was sunk in Norway.
Had the Germans been able to establish a beachhead, i believe it would have played out like Gallipoli or Anzio.
-
THE WAR WAS UNWINNABLE FROM THE START YOU DING DONGS
-
No, the axis could have won if Russia stayed on the axis side
-
yeah, if germany never attacked russia, england woulda fell, hitler just didnt have the patience to wait england out and had 2 use all his pretty toys and the only target left for his tanks was russia. and germany still had a small chance to win even after they attacked russia, but lets face it, hitler wasnt a general and he made mistakes that say, rommel or other generals wouldnt have made.
-
No, the axis could have won if Russia stayed on the axis side
Had the B.E.F been destroyed in France in 1940, the war would have been very near winning for the Axis.
-
@ABWorsham:
No, the axis could have won if Russia stayed on the axis side
Had the B.E.F been destroyed in France in 1940, the war would have been very near winning for the Axis.
Not true. In fact, most of those evacuated from Dunkirk were returned to France to continue the fight. Thus, their loss would not matter in an invasion of England, which was impossible anyway.
-
A little known fact that was Stalin had offered the Germans military support if the western allies had ever come close to destroying the germans. (this was before Hitler attacked the Soviet Union)
Check out “world war two behind close doors” by Laurence rees
Suggested Topics
