Most decisive battle of the Second World War

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.

@LHoffman:

@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.

@calvinhobbesliker:

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:

@calvinhobbesliker:

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

@The:

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

But suppose French and British troops were storming Berlin.  Would Stalin enter the war on Hitlers side at that point?  I doubt it.  If the allies were close to destroying the Germans, why would Stalin (despite any promises - and he wasn’t the type who would necessarily keep his word) unnecessarily enter a war on what could very well be the losing side?

I have heard theories that the Germans attacked Russia because of a lack of any other option that could result in a victory.  Having “Fortress Europe” would provide Hitler with all the necessary resources imaginable.  And with only one front to defend would enable a concentration of the best forces where necessary.

Not sure I agree as Stalin was giving Hitler anything he wanted before this, but strategically what other options did Hitler have for a victory?  Sealion was not going to happen.  Possibly a U-boat blockade, but that seems unlikely to work…possibly something in Africa, though even a victory here doesn’t seem to provide a decisive victory.  Possibly the Amerika bomber, but that was still in development and could eventually be copied and/or countered…

What i meant by ever cxame close was if Germany was struggling to get more troops also Stalin may of done this because he would be able to capture the rest of poland and territories under “the german sphere of influence” on his way to help and if they really were in that much trouble Stalin’s forces wouldn’t get there in time and so he would just get extra territories for free

So, Russian assistance under the assumption of a manpower draining trench warfare (like WWI).  Interesting…when I get more time I will have to look up your reference and read it.

Before deciding which battle best represents the turning point, it’s important to look at the strategic situation faced by the Axis (and in particular by Germany), starting in early 1939.

It has been argued that Germany lost the war when it attacked Poland. However, various plans had been made or discussed in the mid-‘30s to get the Western democracies to join the Soviet Union in ganging up on Germany. Those plans fell through not because of any hesitation on the Western democracies’ part, but because Stalin regarded both Germany and the Western democracies as enemies. He wanted a long war between those two sides–a war that would bleed both sides dry. Then the Red Army would move in to pick up the pieces.

In 1939, the combined British/French military production exceeded Germany’s; with plans underway to further expand the former source of military production. Moreover, Britain and France could draw upon the extensive resources of their colonies, and could import weapons from the United States; while Germany could do neither. Even before German tanks crossed the Polish border, Germany was in a position of strategic weakness, and had been largely isolated diplomatically by Western leaders who (in most cases) strongly preferred Soviet communism to Nazism. The French prime minister of the time–Daladier–had participated in a coalition government with the French communist party. FDR liked, looked up to, and wanted to form a long-term alliance with Joseph Stalin. Had Germany not invaded Poland, various Western politicians would have sought other pretexts for war with it. Had they failed, it’s very possible the Soviet Union would have invaded once Stalin had become convinced that his invasion would succeed, and that the hoped-for war between the Western democracies and Germany would not occur. Everything that happened from August of 1939 onward represented an ultimately unsuccessful attempt by Germany to escape that position of strategic weakness, and to secure itself against the dual threat of the Western democracies and the Red Army.

In 1940, Germany produced 11,000 military aircraft, compared to 15,000 for Britain. The U.S. shipped large numbers of aircraft and aircraft engines to Britain. It had been agreed that, over the course of the next few years, the U.S. would expand its military aircraft production to a staggering 72,000 planes per year; with half being sent to Britain for use against Germany. Even though the U.S. was still technically at peace in 1940, its industrial strength was increasingly being brought to bear against Germany.

In 1940, Hitler did not have the industrial capacity or access to raw materials or labor he required to match the Anglo-American war effort being waged against Germany. One of the reasons for his invasion of the Soviet Union was to acquire these things; thereby allowing him to match the Western democracies’ aircraft production over the long haul. Victory over the Soviet Union would also secure Germany’s eastern front before any serious invasion of its western front could be launched.

However, Germany’s population in 1939 was 69 million; as compared to 169 million for the Soviets. That gave the Red Army a staggering advantage in manpower. Moreover, the Soviets’ military production exceeded that of Germany’s by a factor of between three and four for most major land categories in 1942. The Soviets also produced nearly twice as many military aircraft as Germany did that year. The overwhelming advantage the Soviets had in manpower, together with their equally overwhelming edge in military production, were why Germany could not hope to win a long war against the Soviets.

It is also worth noting that Britain had imposed a food blockade on Germany, which created a severe food shortage. German occupation policy in the Soviet Union was harsh because its lack of available food meant it had no choice but to starve many millions of people. There just wasn’t food to feed everyone. People in conquered Soviet territories were among the millions starved. That meant that the Germans could not be seen as liberators, but were rather cast in the role of hostile invaders who must be resisted at all costs.

In 1941, Japanese industrial capacity was only a tenth that of the U.S. The U.S. produced 48,000 military aircraft in 1942, compared to just 9,000 for Japan.

The phrase “turning point” implies that there was some time in the war before which the Axis had the advantage, and after which the Allies had the edge. At least from a strategic perspective, there was no turning point in WWII. Germany was at a significant disadvantage before the war began, and that disadvantage remained throughout the war’s duration. It experienced some remarkable tactical victories during that time; particularly its conquest of France and the western parts of the Soviet Union. But those tactical victories were never enough to create strategic parity with the Allies. Nor could Japan’s early victories in the Pacific offset the U.S.'s massive advantage in industrial capacity.

It could be pointed out that early in the war, the Axis had a brief window of tactical opportunity: a time for it to win victories before the overwhelming Allied strategic advantages could be fully brought to bear. On Germany’s western front, its string of such victories ended with the Battle of Britain. On its eastern front, they (mostly) ended with the battle of Moscow. And in the Pacific, Japan’s string of early victories ended at Midway.

It would have been very difficult or impossible for Germany to have launched a serious invasion of Britain. It lacked the transport capacity and surface fleet to do so. Moreover, with Britain producing more and better aircraft than Germany in 1940, Germany’s window of opportunity to invade was clearly very brief. While a successful invasion of Britain would have been extremely beneficial to the Axis war effort, British victory in that battle was never in much doubt.

The Battle of Moscow was similar. Germany lacked access to much oil. Therefore, its supply lines could not primarily rely on trucks. Instead, it would use coal-powered locomotives to carry supplies most of the way to where they were needed, and horses to transport them the rest of the way. The need for rail significantly slowed the German advance, so that Soviet rail lines could be converted to the German gauge, and so that the rails could be repaired or replaced. Germany had enough oil and military trucks to provide some motorized supply for its troops; and that helped speed the invasion of the Soviet Union. But by the Battle of Moscow, its fragile supply lines had been stretched to the limit. Its soldiers lacked the food, medical supplies, ammunition, and winter uniforms they required. Germany’s failure at the Battle of Moscow was a function of the strategic weakness it had experienced even before the war began. That battle also reflected the Soviets’ enormous manpower reserves and overall military strength.

Kurt,

Very excellent analysis, and I agree.

I would like to point out, however that possibilities for Germany other than that actually tried by the Nazis were possible.

England’s weakness (same as her strength) lies in the sea.  Had Germany launched a sufficiently massive U-boat construction effort in time ( before countermeasures were developed), it might have been possible to starve England to the peace table.

With Russia, more concentration on Moscow (or perhaps Stalingrad) at the (to be hoped temporary) expense of the other fronts to maximize the initial Nazi advantage at one strategic concentration of forces might have fragmented Russia for a victory there.

Not that either of these would necessarily bring victory either…

However, the fact that Nazi Germany did not put their economy on a war time basis until 1944 is perhaps their greatest reason for failing to win the war.  It is telling that Nazi armament production peaked in fall of 1944 despite the then constant bombing, loss of manpower, shortages of material, loss of conquered territory (and subsequent labor and materials to aid munitions production), etc.  Had Germany utilized their economy on a war basis earlier the outcome might have been different.  But then, there were political considerations Hitler had to contend with…