Most decisive battle in WW2? - Page 20




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

 
--
 
September 17th, 2008  
Papashah41
 
MontyB, I do not disagree with most of what you say. The Royal Navy would be one tough nut to crack. But by this time they would be fighting the Nazi juggernaut by themselves. But even without the RAF the Royal Navy could persevere. Again, there may be other reasons Hitler didn,t stay with the Sea Lion plan. He secretly admired the British and hoped they would see reason and make peace. But I still believe his obsession with Russia was the main reason for changing track. But Hitler could have destroyed Britain another way. Read my piece to Le Enfield. Oh, and by the way I still believe the Battle of Britain was a decisive battle. If he had destroyed the RAF the world would have held it's breath in anticipation of his next move.
September 17th, 2008  
MontyB
 
 
I cannot find any reason to elevate the BoB to the level of WW2's most decisive battle (There is no doubt it was an important one) unless there was a reason to believe that:
a) Losing it would knock Britain out of the war.
b) It could actually be lost.

There is nothing to indicate that Britain had any intention of giving up irrespective of the result and given the number pilots and aircrew coming into Britain via Commonwealth Air Training Schools it is unlikely that the RAF would ever have been out of action for very long.

The only way to have genuinely defeated the RAF would have been to deprive them of airfields via invasion which couldn't be done because because of the dominance of the Royal Navy and given that much of the Kriegsmarine was sitting at the bottom of Norwegian fjords and that the Luftwaffe had failed to cause any significant damage on the Royal Navy during the withdrawal from Dunkirk I think it fair to say that Britain was in no real danger of invasion.
November 25th, 2010  
Korean Seaboy
 
 
I go against the trend and vote for Moscow. Although Stalingrad and Kursk did help a lot, I believe the battle of Moscow was the exact turning point for the war. When the Germans were pushed out of Moscow, it was the beginning of the Allies part of the war
--
November 26th, 2010  
lljadw
 
I did not know this is still debated,and why,because it is obvious that none of the battles that were debated,were "decisive " (curiously enough,every one has made the beginners mistake of not defining "decisive).Why were none decisive :because,in a total war,no battle can be decisive .
Let's take some exemples :
Moscow :if the city had fallen in november 1941,the results would be minime ,the Germans would not advance farther to the east,and,in december,the Russians would start their winteroffensive . Degree of decisiveness :0
Stalingrad :if the city had fallen in september 1942,the results would be minime,the Germans would not advance farther to the east,and,in november,the Russians would start their winteroffensive (Uranus)
Kursk ne of the countless battles of WWII,with few German losses:54000 men and 250 tanks.If the Germans had won,the Russians would nevertheless have launched their counter offensives(Kutuzov,Orel,and others).
And some other questions :was there any decisive battle in WWI (possible exception:the Marne),in the US Civil War ,in the wars of the French republic and Bonaparte ?IMHO :NOT
November 26th, 2010  
Partisan
 
 
Decisive? Every battle has an outcome, or decision!

For me Overlord, it not opened a second front against Germany on the European mainland, but it also forced the Germans to acknowledge that Festung Europa could not protect, as the Maginot had failed the French.

Once they were strategically divided it was a matter of time, because each front gobbled up resources and men, whilst restricting access to - resources and men.
November 27th, 2010  
lljadw
 
if Stalingrad was decisive,Moscow could not be decisive,etc,and vice versa .
December 5th, 2010  
Victum Romanus
 
 
I think that the turning point in this war was Operation Barbarossa, Stalingrad, Moscow and Pearl Harbour.
When the Japanese started one of the worlds best military attacks at Pearl Harbour in 7. December the war turned into a world war.
When Hitler decided to invade Sovjet, the fate of the axis where concealed once and for all. A two front war is really something you want have.

Stalingrad, battle of Moscow and the battle of Kursk where also decisive. Hitler and the third reich lost huge amounts of lives and resources.
December 5th, 2010  
lljadw
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by General Roman
I think that the turning point in this war was Operation Barbarossa, Stalingrad, Moscow and Pearl Harbour.
When the Japanese started one of the worlds best military attacks at Pearl Harbour in 7. December the war turned into a world war.
When Hitler decided to invade Sovjet, the fate of the axis where concealed once and for all. A two front war is really something you want have.

Stalingrad, battle of Moscow and the battle of Kursk where also decisive. Hitler and the third reich lost huge amounts of lives and resources.
to say that when Hitler attacked the SU,the fate of the axis was concealed,is to follow a deterministic POV,and that's wrong n 22 june 1941,no one could foerecast the issue;there were even a lot of people in the UK and the USA who were very sceptick on the chances of the SU .
I have to disagree on the assumption that the Third Reich lost huge amounts of lives and resources at Kursk :The Germans lost 54182 men and 252 tanks at Kursk;for the whole of 1943,the losses on the eastfront were some 1.6 million .
December 13th, 2010  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
I did not know this is still debated,and why,because it is obvious that none of the battles that were debated,were "decisive " (curiously enough,every one has made the beginners mistake of not defining "decisive).Why were none decisive :because,in a total war,no battle can be decisive .
Let's take some exemples :
Moscow :if the city had fallen in november 1941,the results would be minime ,the Germans would not advance farther to the east,and,in december,the Russians would start their winteroffensive . Degree of decisiveness :0
Stalingrad :if the city had fallen in september 1942,the results would be minime,the Germans would not advance farther to the east,and,in november,the Russians would start their winteroffensive (Uranus)
Kursk ne of the countless battles of WWII,with few German losses:54000 men and 250 tanks.If the Germans had won,the Russians would nevertheless have launched their counter offensives(Kutuzov,Orel,and others).
I'm not sure I fully follow your logic. The Moscow battle was probably Germany's only chance to quickly knock the Soviet Union out of the war. You vastly understate the importance of that. The battles that follow; Kharkov, Stalingrad, Rzhev, Kursk, Bagration, Berlin, are all as a direct result of the outcome of that battle and they were generally battles that suited the Red Army rather than the Ostheer. In essence, the failure of Moscow drew the Germans into a slugging, resource-draining war of attrition they would not be favoured to win in the long run.

That's why Moscow was decisive. It largely determined that the war in the East would not be over in one season. It changed the war in the east into something that suited the strengths of the Red Army and the Soviet Union over those of the Wehrmacht and Germany. It allowed the time for the Soviets to mobilise and deploy replacements for their huge losses in 1941 and those huge losses to come in the following 3 years. It allowed the time for the Red Army to consolidate their war effort in the East and build a large strategic reserve of manpower, which would prove decisive.

Actually, I could narrow things down further. I would state that the ability of the Red Army to maintain and utilize a strategic reserve was the decisive factor for victory in Europe in WW2.
December 14th, 2010  
lljadw
 
I am starting from another POV :it is not because that AFTER the battle for Moscow,the war in the East was not finished,that it was BECAUSE of the battle for Moscow (in Latin ost hoc is not propter hoc).It never has been proved that the fall of Moscow would cause the collaps of the SU .
The German plan to win the war in 1941 was to be at the A-A line before the winter(Moscow was not mentioned),well,on 1 september (before the battle of Moscow),it was obvious,that there was no chance to reach the A-A line,even if Moscow was captured .
That the SU survived in 1941,was due to the summerbattlesn 1 september,the Red army was stronger than on 22 june,and on 1 december it was stronger than on 1 september (3 million,4 million,4.6 million),even if Moscow had fallen in november,there still would be a Red army of 4.6 million in november and the Germans could never destroy that army:it would be winter,and the Germans were exhausted .