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.

Originally Posted by perseus

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.

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.

Originally Posted by MontyB

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.

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.

Originally Posted by MontyB

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.

I agree. The outcome of this battle did not decide anything at all.

Originally Posted by perseus

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Njaco

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.

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.