Most decisive battle in WW2?

[melkor the first]

Pearl Harbor

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

 

[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.

 

[Arclight]

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.

 

[Doppleganger]

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.

 

[rkmac48]

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...

 

[Farseer]

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...

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.

 

[Doppleganger]

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.

 

[Charge 7]

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.

 

[Doppleganger]

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.

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.

 

[Charge 7]

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.

 

[Doppleganger]

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.

Up to you Charge. I'm not arguing semantics - I've read the Article and that's what it states. Surely if the article specifically meant 'only if attacked first' it would have stated that somewhere? One can assume that either the article is poorly worded or that it was never meant to differentiate against aggressor or defender? Which do you think is more likely?

 

[melkor the first]

Tripartite Act

Germany was no more obliged to declare war on the US than Japan was to declare war on the Soviet Union. It is probably likely that since the US had been escorting British convoys and attacking U-boate that Hitler simply believed that this was inevitable and that the timing was appropriate. There may even been a hope that Japan would quickly sew up the Pacific diverting US Naval activity away from the Atlantic at the same time opening larger areas to attack the convoys.

 

[MontyB]

Re: Tripartite Act

Germany was no more obliged to declare war on the US than Japan was to declare war on the Soviet Union. It is probably likely that since the US had been escorting British convoys and attacking U-boate that Hitler simply believed that this was inevitable and that the timing was appropriate. There may even been a hope that Japan would quickly sew up the Pacific diverting US Naval activity away from the Atlantic at the same time opening larger areas to attack the convoys.

This is pretty much my understanding as well, Germany had no obligation to declare war on the US however I think that Doppleganger is also correct in that the intent of the treaty was to support the other signatories in the event of a war with a party outside their existing opposition.

However isnt this getting a tad off topic?.

 

[melkor the first]

Tripartite-ad nauseaum

Yes, on the off subject with the caveat that I assume that this is a adjunct to the mention of Pearl Harbor as the decisive battle of WW2. I still don't think so in the light of which the subject was defined at the beginning of the thread. Thanks and best JWC

 

[redcoat]

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.

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.

Sorry, but you are.
the Article states quite clearly "if attacked"

Otherwise, Japan would not have been duty bound to come to Germany's aid when the latter attacked the Soviet Union in 1941.

They weren't and they didn't.
Japan went to great lenghts to to stay neutral in respect of the German/Soviet war. Japanese submarines even up to 1945 were forbidden to attack Soviet ships in the Pacific.

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.

Then why didn't the Japanese aid Germany in the war against the Soviet Union ????.
Answer, the Japanese had read the articles of the pact.
Especially the "if attacked " bit.

 

[Doppleganger]

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.

Sorry, but you are.
the Article states quite clearly "if attacked"

Otherwise, Japan would not have been duty bound to come to Germany's aid when the latter attacked the Soviet Union in 1941.

They weren't and they didn't.
Japan went to great lenghts to to stay neutral in respect of the German/Soviet war. Japanese submarines even up to 1945 were forbidden to attack Soviet ships in the Pacific.

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.

Then why didn't the Japanese aid Germany in the war against the Soviet Union ????.
Answer, the Japanese had read the articles of the pact.
Especially the "if attacked " bit.

Sorry, but that's just your interpretation of words. It's no more or less valid than mine. I think we should just agree to disagree and leave things here as the thread is getting de-railed. There are good reasons why the Japanese gave little practical aid to Germany but let's leave that for another time.

 

[Shaan14]

i think that the japanese were running on empty while they were conquering the pacific but i think that if the germans had managed to overrun russia up to the ural mountains they could have conquered all of the remaining empire. then thy could have focused more attntion on britiain and conquered it. who knows what would have happened then.

 

[06USMC]

The Battle of Midway was the most impressive because just six months after we were attacked we pretty much defeated Japan.

 

[MontyB]

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.

Hehe I am begining to think the History channel is confused as I have just got through a documentary where Kursk was declared the "most decisive battle of WW2" for pretty much the reasons you have put forward.
However I will stick with Stalingrad myself.

 

[Charge 7]

It wasn't The History Channel that said so, it was the German vets who were there on the Eastern Front who were saying it. They had several of them interviewed - including, as I said, if you actually read my post, Lt. Col. Heinz-Günther Guderian, General Guderian's son and a German officer on that front himself.