All those battles were important and it is a job to pick out any one of them and say that won the war. Personally I think many of the little battles that raged in the early part of the war where Allies fought with very little to stem the tide of the Axis forces really were the key for if it had not been for their sacrifice many of the bigger battles would not have taken place.

I would say that Operation Overlord was a very decisive battle in World War 2. If we wouldn't have pushed into France like we did in Operation Overlord, then I don't think we would have been able to get to Germany easily. So I think that this was very important part in the history of World War 2.

Without offending one's sensibilities nor trying to demean and invalidate the war of the Western allies, I would cast my votes on any single Eastern Front battle before even considering the western front. World War two was fought in Eastern Europe. Every details points to that. Stalingrad, Leningrad, Kursk, Kiev, Debrecen, and even the Warsaw rising. These were clashes of titans -wars of annihilation. Hitler and Stalin were fighting total and ideological wars, which by definition leave no ambiguities nor misunderstanding in the way of the fighting. The Geneva Conention rules were a "nicety," massacres happened by the divisions and corps. Only in the battle of Debrecen in Hungary in Hungary in October 1944 the German 6th Army annihilated three Soviet tank Corps. The equivalent of the Western Battle of the Bulge in the East was not dreaded, it was expected and welcomed, since there was no other way. The Germans and the Soviets did not rout each other on brigade and divisional level, rather on corps and army level. It was simply a war of giants. Checking all statiscs will back this up. The trauma of the war in the West was not experienced the same way, or at the same level and intensity as in the East. I am inclined to think that there was NO GREAT BATTLE in WWII, since I view every confrontation as a part of a lobng process which has a beginning and an end. Every battle no matter small or big contributed to the same end result. However, If I am to point my finger at one of them, I have to choose Stalingrad, not because on the numbers that died there, nor because of the horrors of war, or the scale of destruction. Simply because the was the culmination of Nazi power which from then on started to decline. The only battle of the west which I consider worthy of being called as a true operation is the fight for Monetcasino and Anzio. I dont think the Normandy landing, nor the Battle fo the Bulge qualify since, despite the numbers involved their end result was never in doubt. Even if the landing would have marred by disaster, they would have landed at one point in time; whereas the Battle of the Bulge was a result of the thined Ally supplies and bad weather. After recuperating from the inital surprise the ALlies would have gone eventually on the assault - as in fact it did happen.
Also, I am inclined to believe that no battle of the Pacific qualifies simply because a technological superior US would definitely have defeated Japan; island hoping restricts clashes into well defined spaces, and if not one island would have fallen, the next would have (blitkrieg at its best; divide and conquer later); also, a war between two opponents rarely qualifes as defining into world affairs. Did the war between the US and Spain qualify? Germany v Danmark in the 18th century, Germany v. France and Austria, or Russia v Japan? Important as they were in gaining knowldge and drawing lessons, they did not change the course of reality much: just how to perceive it [/u]

I feel Operation Overlord is important to the War because It was largest invade that world ever seen it before.

Originally Posted by Fox

I feel Operation Overlord is important to the War because It was largest invade that world ever seen it before.

I don't think it was the largest invasion in history. I think it was the largest amphibious landing in history. I think.

Originally Posted by BaZoOkAzNgReNaDeZ

I don't think it was the largest invasion in history. I think it was the largest amphibious landing in history. I think.

The largest invasion in history was the German invasion of the Soviet Union. To put it into some kind of context with the D-Day landings Operation Barbarossa numerically speaking was over ten times as massive.

Approximately 330,000 Allied troops stormed the Normandy beaches on June 6th, 1944..

Approximately 3,700,000 German and Axis soldiers marched into the Soviet Union on June 22nd, 1941. There were 4,300,000 Soviet soldiers there to greet them.

Put things into context a little I think.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

The largest invasion in history was the German invasion of the Soviet Union. To put it into some kind of context with the D-Day landings Operation Barbarossa numerically speaking was over ten times as massive.

Approximately 330,000 Allied troops stormed the Normandy beaches on June 6th, 1944..

Approximately 3,700,000 German and Axis soldiers marched into the Soviet Union on June 22nd, 1941. There were 4,300,000 Soviet soldiers there to greet them.

Put things into context a little I think.

WOW I never knew that! Very interesting.....

I'll say D-day because that is the battle in which the commanders relisized how important the Airbourne was in operations behind enemy lines.Also because it opened a second front in Europe and led to dissent in Germany about Hitler's reigeme.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

The largest invasion in history was the German invasion of the Soviet Union. To put it into some kind of context with the D-Day landings Operation Barbarossa numerically speaking was over ten times as massive.

Approximately 330,000 Allied troops stormed the Normandy beaches on June 6th, 1944..

Approximately 3,700,000 German and Axis soldiers marched into the Soviet Union on June 22nd, 1941. There were 4,300,000 Soviet soldiers there to greet them.

Put things into context a little I think.

Your numbers for the Soviet Union are off. The forces in the Western Military Districts numbered some 2.9 million men of whom around 1 million were stationed along or close to the border.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

IMO the Battle of Kursk decided the outcome of WW2 in Europe. Simply put, before Kursk the Germans had the strategic initiative, despite Stalingrad; after Kursk it passed to the Soviet Union who would never give it up. The Battles of Moscow and Stalingrad were big decisive battles, but the key point that distinguishes them from Kursk is that afterwards the Germans still had options. After Kursk they only had one - retreat.

By the time Operation Overlord was launched the war had already been decided for almost a year.

Kursk, like Normandy, simply brought the conclusion of the war to a quicker end. Casualties during the Kursk defensive offensive were quite small compared to other operations, like the Moscow Counter offensive and Stalingrad. The ensuing operations to take Belgorod and Orel were much heavier in terms of casualties for both sides. I'd say that it was in fact the Moscow Counter-offensive that decided the war in the East, even if Stalingrad was taken by the Germans there wasn't much more they could do. Soviet bridgeheads were already there for the encirclement of the Sixth Army. The fact that the Germans could only launch an offensive with one army group shows how far their war waging abilities had been degraded.