I don't think that Pearl Harbor really fits the category as most decisive battle as its immediate effects were astring of Japanese victories, much as the invasion of Russia led to a huge string of German victories. Both were awful strategic moves as evidenced by the ultimate results. Personally, I viewthe entrance of Italy into the war as more decisive to the defeat of Germany than almost any other factor but this is not a decisive battle either. Best JWC

The History Channel has a two part documentary on tonight called Hitler's War showing newsreel footage interspersed with modern graphics and interviews with those who there. Interestingly enough, to a man all the German veterans are calling Stalingrad the most decisive battle on the Eastern Front, not Kursk. Among them is a former junior German officer named Heinz-Günther Guderian - the General's son.

Originally Posted by Charge 7

The History Channel has a two part documentary on tonight called Hitler's War showing newsreel footage interspersed with modern graphics and interviews with those who there. Interestingly enough, to a man all the German veterans are calling Stalingrad the most decisive battle on the Eastern Front, not Kursk. Among them is a former junior German officer named Heinz-Günther Guderian - the General's son.

Cool, thanks for the heads up. I'll be watching.

Originally Posted by Charge 7

The History Channel has a two part documentary on tonight called Hitler's War showing newsreel footage interspersed with modern graphics and interviews with those who there. Interestingly enough, to a man all the German veterans are calling Stalingrad the most decisive battle on the Eastern Front, not Kursk. Among them is a former junior German officer named Heinz-Günther Guderian - the General's son.

Stalingrad certainly was decisive, no argument there. It would have been even more decisive had Manstein not pulled off the miracle recapture of Khar'kov just afterwards. I guess it hurts even more for those veterans when they're aware that Stalingrad could have been taken almost without a fight in July 1942.

Heinz-Gunther Guderian served in both the Wehrmacht (at one point in dad's Panzer Korps) and the Bundeswehr. Interestingly, he became Inspector General of Panzertruppen for the Bundeswehr, exactly the same role his famous dad served in for the Wehrmacht.

Originally Posted by c/Commander

Hmm...Pearl Harbor isn't in there. Wouldn't the battle that got the US involved be considered massively important?

Yeah, but the Japanese screwed it up by missing the oil reserves and the U.S. aircraft carriers. In that sense, the battle was not decisive at all. In fact, from a hindsight standpoint, it may have been a victory for the United States!

Because the battleships were gone, America was forced to rely on carrier strength - a move that put them on top at Midway six months later.


Pearl Harbor was a blessing in disguise...

Originally Posted by rkmac48

Yeah, but the Japanese screwed it up by missing the oil reserves and the U.S. aircraft carriers. In that sense, the battle was not decisive at all. In fact, from a hindsight standpoint, it may have been a victory for the United States!

Because the battleships were gone, America was forced to rely on carrier strength - a move that put them on top at Midway six months later.


Pearl Harbor was a blessing in disguise...

I think that after Pearl Harbor, German declaring war against USA was a surprise to most Japanese. After all, only Hitler's decision forced Germany against USA. If Hitler would have let USA to concentrate its forces into Pacific it could have made Germany war in Europe much more easier. Without USA in war there wouldn't have been so massive bombing campaign or Operation Torch or anything like that.

It has always been mystery to me, why Hitler declared war against USA. Did he really thought that Japanese would have been so triumphant in Pacific that USA could be forced to concentrate its forces there instead of Europe. And did Hitler again believe Görings promises about air superiority in Europe even with USA in war? Comments, please.

Originally Posted by Farseer

It has always been mystery to me, why Hitler declared war against USA. Did he really thought that Japanese would have been so triumphant in Pacific that USA could be forced to concentrate its forces there instead of Europe. And did Hitler again believe Görings promises about air superiority in Europe even with USA in war? Comments, please.

He was bound to declare war on the USA by the terms of the Tripartite Act. But I also think he believed that the US people would not have the stomach for a long war and he was quite confident that they would not take the war to the Japanese, never mind be able to ship an invasion force all the way to the borders of Fortress Europe.

It appeared that Hitler did indeed believe just about anything Goering told him. He had tremendous faith in Goering's abilities and the way he had built up the Luftwaffe between the wars.

It has always been mystery to me, why Hitler declared war against USA. Did he really thought that Japanese would have been so triumphant in Pacific that USA could be forced to concentrate its forces there instead of Europe. And did Hitler again believe Görings promises about air superiority in Europe even with USA in war? Comments, please.

Hitler declared war on the US because we had long been very low on the totem pole among the military powers. We ranked 17th in the world in 1939 - right behind Portugal. Hitler saw us as soft and culturally weak. He thought we wouldn't put up the fight that we did. Lucky for us he had no concept of our industrial might as well as our resolve.

He was bound to declare war on the USA by the terms of the Tripartite Act.

Incorrect, the Tripartite Pact only bound the signers to fight on the others' behalf if they were attacked. As Japan had attacked America it was clearly not binding in that case.

The real reason other than what I stated above was that Hitler knew the Japanese had millions of troops in Manchuria. He was hoping that by coming in on their side against the Americans that he could convince Japan to come in on his side against the Russians.

Originally Posted by Charge 7

Incorrect, the Tripartite Pact only bound the signers to fight on the others' behalf if they were attacked. As Japan had attacked America it was clearly not binding in that case.

Article III of the Pact deals with the mutual protection aspect. It merely states that "Japan, Germany and Italy agree to cooperate in their efforts on the aforesaid lines. They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means when one of the three Contracting Parties is attacked by a power at present not involved in the European War or in the Sino-Japanese Conflict."

It does not state that the Article is void if one of the signatories is the aggressor. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Otherwise, Japan would not have been duty bound to come to Germany's aid when the latter attacked the Soviet Union in 1941. Such a disclaimer would not have suited an aggressive alliance of powers - it was more likely that the Axis would be the aggressors than the defenders in any future conflicts. At the time of the signing on the Pact on 27 September 1940, the Soviet Union and Germany were of course at peace. So therefore, Germany was still duty bound to come to Japan's aid as they were now being attacked by the US, regardless of who started the conflict.

They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means when one of the three Contracting Parties is attacked

You can argue the semantics if you like. Still it seems clear to me that the intent is only if they are first attacked and not if they are attacked in retribution for initiating an attack. Every article I can recall reading about that point says the same thing. I'm sure I can find sources if you wish.