Most decisive battle in WW2? - Page 17




View Poll Results :Most decisive battle in WW2?
Battle of Stalingrad 34 33.33%
Battle of Kursk (Operation Citadel) 15 14.71%
Battle of Moscow 10 9.80%
Battle of Leningrad 0 0%
Battle of El Alamein 3 2.94%
Operation Overlord (Battle of Normandy) 17 16.67%
Battle of Midway 11 10.78%
Other 12 11.76%
Voters: 102. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
 
April 17th, 2008  
FULLMETALJACKET
 
 
in my eyes i cant choose one, Stalingrad stands out in my mind, although Operation Overlord calls my name.
April 17th, 2008  
mmarsh
 
 
Stalingrad was the most defining battle of WWII in the ETO, Midway in the PTO.

Overlord was on June 6 1944 but by then the war was already lost for the Germans, the Germans knew this as far back as 1943. The German knew that to defeat the USSR they were going to have to go for the quick knockout blow, they knew that they would lose a slugging match with the Soviets due to the vast numerical+industrial superiority of the Red Army. The Russians could replace losses, the Germans couldn't.

The Failure to break the Soviet back at Stalingrad accomplished two things.

1. Bought the Red Army time to bolster forces and replace losses suffered during Barbarossa and bring the full might of the the Red Army down on the Germans.

2. Destroyed the creme of the Wehrmacht forces. The loss of 6th Army including some of the very best German divisions such as Hoth's Panzer Division and the Luftwaffe Transport Divisions. The units would be sorely missed.
April 17th, 2008  
Doppleganger
 
 
Stalingrad is overrated as a decisive battle of WW2. It's true that the best part of the largest field army in the Wehrmacht was lost and it's also true that the loss of 6th Army represented men and equipment that the Germans could not hope to replace. Incidentally, only 1 korps of Hoth's 4th Panzer Army was lost and well over half of the Axis losses consisted of satellite armies from Romania, Italy and Hungary.

More importantly however, was the fact that by that time it was clear that the Germans could no longer defeat the Soviet Union. A decisive event is generally regarded as an event that determines an outcome and as it was already clear that the Soviet Union would at least draw in early 1943, Stalingrad cannot really be considered as a decisive battle. Stalingrad was, understandably, turned into a propaganda victory by the USSR and it is for that reason that it retains its mystique.

The Battle of Moscow, largely forgotten by most casual observers, was one of the true turning points of WW2 and my pick.
--
April 17th, 2008  
FULLMETALJACKET
 
 
Battle of Midway was also important, but def. not the most decisive.
April 17th, 2008  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Stalingrad is overrated as a decisive battle of WW2. It's true that the best part of the largest field army in the Wehrmacht was lost and it's also true that the loss of 6th Army represented men and equipment that the Germans could not hope to replace. Incidentally, only 1 korps of Hoth's 4th Panzer Army was lost and well over half of the Axis losses consisted of satellite armies from Romania, Italy and Hungary.

More importantly however, was the fact that by that time it was clear that the Germans could no longer defeat the Soviet Union. A decisive event is generally regarded as an event that determines an outcome and as it was already clear that the Soviet Union would at least draw in early 1943, Stalingrad cannot really be considered as a decisive battle. Stalingrad was, understandably, turned into a propaganda victory by the USSR and it is for that reason that it retains its mystique.

The Battle of Moscow, largely forgotten by most casual observers, was one of the true turning points of WW2 and my pick.

Surely by your own definitions Moscow cannot be considered decisive unless you believe that the war was lost to the Germans after that point.

Lets be realistic here the only thing that stopped the Germans capturing Stalingrad intact and almost without a fight was the decision to stop and rest the 6th army outside the city as up until that point the German summer operations were moving along nicely.

If we are going to speculate on crucial points I would suggest that the failure to capture Leningrad and free up AGN for further eastward operations was probably just as important as the failure to capture Moscow.

So from this casual observers point of view I have not ruled out Moscow I just don't agree on its importance.
April 17th, 2008  
LeEnfield
 
 
Each Battle in it's own way was important in winning the war, I think one one of the most important ones in the European Zone was the Battle Of Britain for if Britain had fallen, Hitler would have taken the whole of Ireland as well and mad it almost impossible for an attack to have taken place to retake Europe. If Britain had fallen the Spain would have joined in with Hitler and Taken Gibraltar which would have closed up the Mediterranean so the Suez Canal and the oil fields would have fallen into Germany's hand. Hitler could then have attacked Russia a bit later on with a far bigger Army that Stalin might have been unable to stop it, as there would not have been the number of troops require in Africa or Norway or in air defence to protect the father land. Which would mean that Hitler might have had another two million men to throw into the battle in Russia
April 17th, 2008  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
Surely by your own definitions Moscow cannot be considered decisive unless you believe that the war was lost to the Germans after that point.

Lets be realistic here the only thing that stopped the Germans capturing Stalingrad intact and almost without a fight was the decision to stop and rest the 6th army outside the city as up until that point the German summer operations were moving along nicely.

If we are going to speculate on crucial points I would suggest that the failure to capture Leningrad and free up AGN for further eastward operations was probably just as important as the failure to capture Moscow.

So from this casual observers point of view I have not ruled out Moscow I just don't agree on its importance.
The war was not winnable for Germany after the successful Moscow counter-offensive by the Red Army in December/January 1941. I did not hold this view before but have now revised my previous opinion. As I've stated a few times before for Germany to win they either had to:

A) Capture Moscow and hope that it would cause an internal collapse of the Soviet regime

OR

b) Halt after the Kiev operation until Spring 1942 and try for Moscow in a 2nd season campaign

The Germans chose A) and failed. Their only hope thereafter was to bleed the Red Army white and force a stalemate which Stalin seemed at various points to be agreeable to.

As far as Stalingrad goes 4th Panzer Army could have captured the city almost without a fight in July, 1942. Hitler's dithering caused a huge traffic jam between 1st and 4th Panzer Armies which held both Armies up for a fortnight, allowing the Soviets to gather just enough forces to prevent any quick capture of Stalingrad. Case Blau was also hopelessly optimistic as a quick look at a map of the southern Soviet Union will confirm.

The failure to capture Leningrad was a setback but it did not in itself determine the outcome of the war in the East. Therefore, it cannot be considered decisive.
April 17th, 2008  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
The war was not winnable for Germany after the successful Moscow counter-offensive by the Red Army in December/January 1941. I did not hold this view before but have now revised my previous opinion. As I've stated a few times before for Germany to win they either had to:

A) Capture Moscow and hope that it would cause an internal collapse of the Soviet regime

OR

b) Halt after the Kiev operation until Spring 1942 and try for Moscow in a 2nd season campaign

The Germans chose A) and failed. Their only hope thereafter was to bleed the Red Army white and force a stalemate which Stalin seemed at various points to be agreeable to.

As far as Stalingrad goes 4th Panzer Army could have captured the city almost without a fight in July, 1942. Hitler's dithering caused a huge traffic jam between 1st and 4th Panzer Armies which held both Armies up for a fortnight, allowing the Soviets to gather just enough forces to prevent any quick capture of Stalingrad. Case Blau was also hopelessly optimistic as a quick look at a map of the southern Soviet Union will confirm.

The failure to capture Leningrad was a setback but it did not in itself determine the outcome of the war in the East. Therefore, it cannot be considered decisive.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one as I believe that over all the failure to capture Leningrad was at least as big a setback as the failure to capture Moscow if not bigger as it would have freed up the men and material to facilitate the capture of Moscow.

I also believe that had Stalingrad been taken while it was "undefended" it would have made the position of Russian forces to the south of the city almost untenable due to the loss of Stalingrad's communications and supply links thus making "Case Blau" a much more viable campaign and more than likely resulting in eventual Russian capitulation through lack of fuel.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LeEnfield
Each Battle in it's own way was important in winning the war, I think one one of the most important ones in the European Zone was the Battle Of Britain for if Britain had fallen, Hitler would have taken the whole of Ireland as well and mad it almost impossible for an attack to have taken place to retake Europe. If Britain had fallen the Spain would have joined in with Hitler and Taken Gibraltar which would have closed up the Mediterranean so the Suez Canal and the oil fields would have fallen into Germany's hand. Hitler could then have attacked Russia a bit later on with a far bigger Army that Stalin might have been unable to stop it, as there would not have been the number of troops require in Africa or Norway or in air defence to protect the father land. Which would mean that Hitler might have had another two million men to throw into the battle in Russia

This has been a view I have held for quite a while although recently I have read some theories that having Britain in the war was what gave Germany the initial element of surprise as Stalin did not believe Germany would fight a war on two fronts, it is thought that he expected war with Germany but only after Britain had been taken out of it and therefore did not give Allied warnings and intelligence reports any credence in fact he saw Allied warnings as an attempt to drive a wedge in the Russo-German alliance.
April 21st, 2008  
FULLMETALJACKET
 
 
After the battle of Midway, the Japanese never won another battle.

Kinda Decisive.
May 11th, 2008  
Easy-8
 
 
Personally I think that people should get two votes. one per theater of operations.