Originally Posted by Xm 8

I chose Operation Overlord, because it made two fronts for the Germans to fight, the western ( Great Britain, Canada, and the US) and the eastern front ( USSR). Causing them to spread their forces in two.

You are aware that a second front was already in existence (Africa), and a third opened up in 1943 (Sicily) right? You should also be aware that at the very most only 30% of the German Army was ever deployed on the Western Front and that it mainly consisted of second line troops, training divisions, luftwaffe personnel and men previously declared unfit for combat. Don't believe the hype about D-Day. In the West we are told it's the decisive battle of the European war in WW2. Not true for one second. When I didn't know any better I thought D-Day was decisive too.

Why do you guys think that Americans think that the turning point of the war? I know because of communism byte why dont you guys think that they cant just accept the facts. Like i know a guy that thinks americans single handedly defeated the nazis and when i try telling him that what really happened hes like oh we gave the russians all of their tanks, or look at what historians say.

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

Just an editorial note Mr Rommel: Russia most definitely has been conquered, but you gotta go way back to the Mongols in the 1200's for that. Not only did Russia get conquered, the Golden Hoarde controlled it for hundreds of years afterward.

Good point with the Battle of Britain, though I'm very much doubting that Germany had any plan for invading the British Isles with any great chance of success, with or without the RAF. Sealion, for instance, would have most definitely failed. The Royal Navy alone could have delayed any amphibious invasion for happening for a long time. Certainly would have handed Germany the upper hand in the Battle of the Atlantic, but it still would have been years before an invasion of Great Britain would have truly been possible.

Umm the Battle of Britain is an interesting one and maybe we are under rating it after all it pretty much put the best of the Luftwaffe out of action and its failure (from a German point of view) left an effective second front in terms of requiring Germany expend large quantities of resources in building the Atlantic wall and manning it.

I would have to say El Alamein Because if the Nazis had taken It they would have pushed into Africa and taken control.Also, El Alemein had a lot of oil ,which everyone needed.

Certainly had Germany been able to capture the middle east it would have made life incredibly difficult for the allies, it would have opened up the possibility for the Germans to open a second front into Russia from the south and deprived them of their main oilfields.
However I don't think a win at El Alamein would have guaranteed Germany a win in the Middle East although I guess the loss of Egypt would have caused some major logistical problems for Britain.

I don't believe that it national jingo-ism that is what is behind most of the responses. The way that some history is packaged is sometimes disingenuous- like the late Stephen Ambrose's book on D-Day which calls it the "decisive battle". As he was a much more respected historian than anyone would ever consider me it would be easy to simply bow and leave that there. Fortunately there are other historians and other points of view. Any bookstore pretty much tends to favor its customers and therefore it is much easier in the US to casually fall upon books on D-Day and much less on Kursk which seems to remain a somewhat lesser known battle than Stalingrad(which did have the advantage of a battle with a conclusion that was clear cut). I still stick with my choice of Midway because of the reasons I've stated earlier, although then I mentioned the Battle of Britain and I give a lot of thought of the battle of Moscow-or the failure of the German's to capture Moscow. Of course, the decisive battle may have been fought in Hitler's mind when he decided not to go a wartime economy in 1940 or 1941. Equally decisive also would be the battle of Greece when Hitler committed himself to Italy's aid and derailed his own schedule. Those things are what-ifs- I'll stick to Midway. Best JWC

Originally Posted by melkor the first

I don't believe that it national jingo-ism that is what is behind most of the responses. The way thatsome history is packaged is sometimes disengenous- like the late Stephen Ambroses book on D-Day which calls it the "decisive battle". As he was a much more respected historian than anyone would ever consider me it would be easy to simply bow and leave that there. Fortunately there are other historians and other points of view. Any bookstore pretty much tends to favor its customers and therefore it is much easier in the US to casually fall upon books on D-Day and much less on Kursk which seems to remain a somewhat lesser known battle than Stalingrad(which did have the advantage of a battle with a conclusion that was clear cut). I still stick with my choice of Midway because of the reasons I've stated earlier, although then I mentioned the Battle of Britain and I give a lot of thought of the battle of Moscow-or the failure of the German's to capture Moscow. Of course, the decisive battle may have been fought in Hitler's mind when he decided not to go a wartime economy in1940 or 1941. Equally decisive also would be the battle of Greece when Hitler committed himself to Italy'said and derailedhis own schedule. Those things are what-ifs- I'll stick to Midway. Best JWC

Agreed, while all of these battles were decisive battles (had any of them had gone the other way it would have changed history in some way) I think what we are looking for is turning point battles which to my way of thinking are battles where the power effectively shifted and stayed "shifted".
To me this was Stalingrad in the European theatre with Kursk a close second mainly because without Stalingrad there wouldnt have been a Kursk and I really dont believe the Germans had a chance of winning at Kursk and basically at Stalingrad the Russians learned they could win and at Kursk the Germans knew it was all over.

I look at El Alamein and D-Day and to be honest of the two I think El Alamein was the more decisive as it showed that the British could compete which really hadnt been seen to that point by the time D-Day rolled around the war was pretty much over but the shouting its only real effect was to shorten the war (this is not saying that it was pointless nor am I saying it wasnt an amazing feat of arms and logistics).

Unfortunately when discussing WW2 the Pacific war always seems to take a back seat but if I was to pick the turning point battle for the Pacific it would be Midway.

milne bay.

which was the first decisive defeat suffered by the japs on land since the war had begun 9 months earlier.

I would say the battle of britian was desicive. If the Luftwaffe would have continued attacks on the airfields in august 1940, it would have crippled the british. Hitler could have then inveaded britian and, although it wouldn't have been a quick fight like poland or france, britian would have been defeated. However, with the invasion of Britian the US wuld more than likely have sent troops to britian. After the defeat of England America would not have a place to mass troops for the invasion except for Iceland, Greenland, or Africa. This would have prolonged the war and Hitler would be free to send around a million troops to the east in preparation for barbarossa. In fact, Hitler might have taken Moscow in '41. But that does not mean that Russia would be lost. The USSR has/had vast resources and with factorys pulled behinf the Urals it would have taken al ong time to develop a bomber that could reach them.

Originally Posted by 7.62

I would say the battle of britian was desicive. If the Luftwaffe would have continued attacks on the airfields in august 1940, it would have crippled the british. Hitler could have then inveaded britian and, although it wouldn't have been a quick fight like poland or france, britian would have been defeated. However, with the invasion of Britian the US wuld more than likely have sent troops to britian. After the defeat of England America would not have a place to mass troops for the invasion except for Iceland, Greenland, or Africa. This would have prolonged the war and Hitler would be free to send around a million troops to the east in preparation for barbarossa. In fact, Hitler might have taken Moscow in '41. But that does not mean that Russia would be lost. The USSR has/had vast resources and with factorys pulled behinf the Urals it would have taken al ong time to develop a bomber that could reach them.

I don't think that taking Moscow was any sort of guarantee of victory for the Wehrmacht, but the lack of the Moscow/Gorky industrial region would have been a HUGE equalizer in terms of military production and even bigger in terms of logistics for reinforcement and resupply. The Red Army would have had to make do without its center hub of railways and it number one production center so that's not small blow. On top of that, it is unlikely that the Russians could have destroyed all of the industrial sites and railways completely, so that hands two very big advantages over to the Germans.

Originally Posted by MontyB

To me this was Stalingrad in the European theatre with Kursk a close second mainly because without Stalingrad there wouldnt have been a Kursk and I really dont believe the Germans had a chance of winning at Kursk and basically at Stalingrad the Russians learned they could win and at Kursk the Germans knew it was all over.

I look at El Alamein and D-Day and to be honest of the two I think El Alamein was the more decisive as it showed that the British could compete which really hadnt been seen to that point by the time D-Day rolled around the war was pretty much over but the shouting its only real effect was to shorten the war (this is not saying that it was pointless nor am I saying it wasnt an amazing feat of arms and logistics).

Unfortunately when discussing WW2 the Pacific war always seems to take a back seat but if I was to pick the turning point battle for the Pacific it would be Midway.

The thing is, the Germans did have a chance to win at Kursk, but only if they had launched it quickly. Instead they took far too long to assemble and Hitler insisted on waiting for the new Panther and Elefant tanks to be ready before giving authorization for the operation to begin. This gave the Soviets plenty of time to build up very formidable defences. By the time the Germans launched their attack the Soviets were more than ready for them. Even so, had all the German Panzerkorps present followed the operational plan delivered by the II SS-Panzerkorps it still *might* have been possible for the Wehrmacht to eke out a victory.

I think El-Alamein was very important from a morale-boosting viewpoint and it definitely helped restore some pride back into the British Army after their crushing defeat 3 years earlier. However, from a grand strategic viewpoint it definitely could not be considered decisive as it did little to affect the eventual outcome of the war. The Battle of Britain also falls into that category.

I think WW2 definitely falls into two regional conflicts and the European one was the more important of the two. That doesn't mean to say that the Pacific Theatre should be ignored I agree. Midway definitely was a decisive battle.

Even so, had all the German Panzerkorps present followed the operational plan delivered by the II SS-Panzerkorps it still *might* have been possible for the Wehrmacht to eke out a victory.

Yes but at a phenomonal cost and to a large degree one the Germans couldnt afford but the Russians could.

The thing is, the Germans did have a chance to win at Kursk, but only if they had launched it quickly. Instead they took far too long to assemble and Hitler insisted on waiting for the new Panther and Elefant tanks to be ready before giving authorization for the operation to begin. This gave the Soviets plenty of time to build up very formidable defences.

Doesnt this indicate that by Kursk the Germans had already lost the initiative?
We are talking about the conducting of a major battle being taken from the military commanders assigned to do the job and the use of new, untried equipment to me this shows a lack of confidence in both the command and equipment being used on that front.

However, from a grand strategic viewpoint it definitely could not be considered decisive as it did little to affect the eventual outcome of the war. The Battle of Britain also falls into that category.

I initially thought this as well but then I thought "ok had Germans won both the Battle of Britain and El Alamein what would have happened next."
My conclusion was:
With the RAF out of the picture there was little chance of stopping the Germans invading or just pounding Britain into a giant pile of rubble I doubt the Royal Navy would have been able to operate in the channel long enough to stop an invasion given Luftwaffe air supremecy.

A loss at El Alamein would have made Egypt untenable and opened up the entire middle east to German attack (Wasnt Iraq/Iran already in a minor revolt at this point), it would have taken the Suez canal and Mediterainian out of the war for the allies and to some degree it would have depleted the oil supplies of Britain by forcing much longer sailings while allowing the axis to concentrate its antishipping capabilities.