Thorgalaeg
Deity
...Maybe I forget something.
wich was the inflexion point in WWII?
what do you think?
wich was the inflexion point in WWII?
what do you think?
Most important event in WWII
- Thread starter Thorgalaeg
- Start date
Sort of depends on your frame of reference, does it not. For me --my dad did not die--.
dannyevilcat
DESTROYER OF FURNITURE
I voted for the Battle of Britain, because it's a matter of how events afterwards might have been altered had the result been different.
Although Sealion existed more in propaganda than reality, let's suppose Britain surrendered... THEN Hitler turned east. Reserves would have been freed up, more fighters and bombers would have been available (and we all know how effective air power is). Also, war with America would not have been inevitable.
Would Germany still have defeated the Soviet Union? My personal belief is no, but is certainly not definite. So long as the U.S. provided supplies, materiel, etc. I don't believe that Russia would have lost. Had even Moscow fallen. Production from behind the Urals alone was greater than that of all of Germany. For that matter, D-Day was not the moment "this world chose whether it was going to be Nazi or Democratic" as Stephen Ambrose has said. The outcome of D-Day was that with the defeat of the Nazis, Europe was not going to fall entirely to the communists.
Although Sealion existed more in propaganda than reality, let's suppose Britain surrendered... THEN Hitler turned east. Reserves would have been freed up, more fighters and bombers would have been available (and we all know how effective air power is). Also, war with America would not have been inevitable.
Would Germany still have defeated the Soviet Union? My personal belief is no, but is certainly not definite. So long as the U.S. provided supplies, materiel, etc. I don't believe that Russia would have lost. Had even Moscow fallen. Production from behind the Urals alone was greater than that of all of Germany. For that matter, D-Day was not the moment "this world chose whether it was going to be Nazi or Democratic" as Stephen Ambrose has said. The outcome of D-Day was that with the defeat of the Nazis, Europe was not going to fall entirely to the communists.
Well, the battles that you name were a product of the broader decisions which took place earlier, so I don't think any particular battle can be considered to be the most important point of the war.
I would say the most important thing to happen was the Japanese refusal of the German requests to attack the Soviets from the east.
Had the Japanese established another large front in the Soviet Union instead of attacking the USA, the Red Army would most likely had fallen. Then, Japan, with vast resources (and slave labour) gathered in from its conquest, could have turned its attention toward the USA and been much more effective. Probably in 1943, assuming the US hadn't already entered the war (which I don't think they would have, or at least not to have taken any decisive actions) While Germany, no longer strained by an eastern front, could concentrate its full might on the UK, and eventually the US armies as well.
Regards
I would say the most important thing to happen was the Japanese refusal of the German requests to attack the Soviets from the east.
Had the Japanese established another large front in the Soviet Union instead of attacking the USA, the Red Army would most likely had fallen. Then, Japan, with vast resources (and slave labour) gathered in from its conquest, could have turned its attention toward the USA and been much more effective. Probably in 1943, assuming the US hadn't already entered the war (which I don't think they would have, or at least not to have taken any decisive actions) While Germany, no longer strained by an eastern front, could concentrate its full might on the UK, and eventually the US armies as well.
Regards
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
Interesting question. I will think about it, but my first instinctive reaction is the Battle of Britain, and to pin it down further, the German decision to switch from attacking radar sites and airfields to the cities.
But not a bad question at all, since you could credibily argue a turned tide at several specific moments - what if the US dive bombers had got lost at Midway? What if Rommel had reached Cairo? Etc. A hundred variables.
But not a bad question at all, since you could credibily argue a turned tide at several specific moments - what if the US dive bombers had got lost at Midway? What if Rommel had reached Cairo? Etc. A hundred variables.
I voted Britain as well for most of the above reasons. I would add that I question if the USW would have sent much in the way of supplies to Russia if Britain wasn't in the war? I would guess not.
While the Battle for Midway was certainly a turning point, I view the Pacific war as having an inevetible conclusion, thus nothing in the Pacific can be labeled the most important in my mind. The possible exception would be Pearl Harbor and Germany's declaration of war following it. Had Japan not provoked the US, the US would not have been at war with Germany as soon. That alone might have tipped the balance against Russia.
That said, forcing England out of the war in the Battle of Britain would have allowed Germany to conquer Russia, IMHO.
While the Battle for Midway was certainly a turning point, I view the Pacific war as having an inevetible conclusion, thus nothing in the Pacific can be labeled the most important in my mind. The possible exception would be Pearl Harbor and Germany's declaration of war following it. Had Japan not provoked the US, the US would not have been at war with Germany as soon. That alone might have tipped the balance against Russia.
That said, forcing England out of the war in the Battle of Britain would have allowed Germany to conquer Russia, IMHO.
Case
The horror, the horror
I voted for the battle of Moscow for several reasons:
Firstly, the Soviet victory at Moscow all but ensured the survival of the Soviet Union
Secondly, the relative success of Hitler's 'hold at all costs' orders led Hitler to believe that he was a superior military commander then his generals, and that German troops could hold against great odds and win.
BTW, here's some more important events which should have been included in the poll:
*Pearl Harbour
*Operation Bagreton (the Soviet offencive mounted in June 1944 which destroyed an entire German Army Group)
*The Japanese decision to stike south (into the Pacific) and not north (into Siberia).
Firstly, the Soviet victory at Moscow all but ensured the survival of the Soviet Union
Secondly, the relative success of Hitler's 'hold at all costs' orders led Hitler to believe that he was a superior military commander then his generals, and that German troops could hold against great odds and win.
BTW, here's some more important events which should have been included in the poll:
*Pearl Harbour
*Operation Bagreton (the Soviet offencive mounted in June 1944 which destroyed an entire German Army Group)
*The Japanese decision to stike south (into the Pacific) and not north (into Siberia).
Crazy Eddie
Genial drunkard
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2001
- Messages
- 880
I would add another "battle", the war in the Atlantic. If Germany had had a larger fleet of long range U-boats available earlier in the war, the shipping losses would have caused serious problems for the Allies all across the globe. The Germans sunk a huge amount of shipping in the first 2 years with only an average of 8 U-boats on station in the Atlantic at any one time.
Moff Jerjerrod
Deity
Definately think Stalingrad was the turning point of the war in Europe.
Sure the Battle of Britain was important in that it saved England from destruction. However if the Germans wanted to they could have tried again the following year and concentrated on strangling England with uboats. But since Barbarossa took place.....
With regards to Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union. If Hitler had left the war to be fought with his generals and not interferred in their decision making then Germany could have easily crushed the Soviet Unions will to live. Hitler diverted panzers in the first year of the war to the Ukraine in september because he wanted the breadbasket there. He should have used those forces to take MOCKBA before winter set in. There is evidence that Stalin was seriously and secretly considering calling for an end to hostilities with Hitler. (Read Antony Bevors "Stalingrad: The fateful Seige")
Both Hitler and Stalin tried to play general during the first year of the war. Stalin quickly realized in '42 that he should let his generals run the war, while he took all the credit of course, but Hitler decided that he alone knew how to run the Wehrmacht. His arrogance and stupidity cost him the war at Stalingrad and revealed Hitler's true insane nature to the German people when he abandoned the poor 6th Army to the vicious Bolshevik hordes which surrounded them. From then on many officers and generals in the German army knew that the war was lost and that Hitler was mad and had to be removed. Stalin was the smarter because Zhukov engineered the brilliant counterstroke which trapped roughly 250,000 Hitlerite invaders in the Kessel of Stalingrad.
Once the communists (and especially Stalin) knew that they could now face the Fascists and defeat them Soviet morale and propaganda pursued a relentless lust to crush the invaders. So yes, not only did Stalingrad destroy the Wehrmachts fighting ability on the eastern front, but it gave the Red's the unrelenting appetite they did not posses the previous year for Germany's destruction.
Sure the Battle of Britain was important in that it saved England from destruction. However if the Germans wanted to they could have tried again the following year and concentrated on strangling England with uboats. But since Barbarossa took place.....
With regards to Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union. If Hitler had left the war to be fought with his generals and not interferred in their decision making then Germany could have easily crushed the Soviet Unions will to live. Hitler diverted panzers in the first year of the war to the Ukraine in september because he wanted the breadbasket there. He should have used those forces to take MOCKBA before winter set in. There is evidence that Stalin was seriously and secretly considering calling for an end to hostilities with Hitler. (Read Antony Bevors "Stalingrad: The fateful Seige")
Both Hitler and Stalin tried to play general during the first year of the war. Stalin quickly realized in '42 that he should let his generals run the war, while he took all the credit of course, but Hitler decided that he alone knew how to run the Wehrmacht. His arrogance and stupidity cost him the war at Stalingrad and revealed Hitler's true insane nature to the German people when he abandoned the poor 6th Army to the vicious Bolshevik hordes which surrounded them. From then on many officers and generals in the German army knew that the war was lost and that Hitler was mad and had to be removed. Stalin was the smarter because Zhukov engineered the brilliant counterstroke which trapped roughly 250,000 Hitlerite invaders in the Kessel of Stalingrad.
Once the communists (and especially Stalin) knew that they could now face the Fascists and defeat them Soviet morale and propaganda pursued a relentless lust to crush the invaders. So yes, not only did Stalingrad destroy the Wehrmachts fighting ability on the eastern front, but it gave the Red's the unrelenting appetite they did not posses the previous year for Germany's destruction.
Thorgalaeg
Deity
I do not think that it had influenced. In the east Hitler had the air supremacy always (at least even after Stalingrado). On the other hand the quantity of German planes (and land units) in western after the battle of England and at the beginning of the Operation Barbarossa was very small compared with the quantity that existed in the Russian front.
I agree totally. When they realized Normandy disembark the
Nazi army were already defeated.
I agree, already I said that something forgot.
Thorgalaeg
Deity
I think that the more importantly event was Stalingrado battle. If the Nazi had won, they would have conquered the Caucasus and all its oil, nobody would have prevented them capturing all middle east (more oil) and have attacked for the back the VIII English army in the north of Africa, Conquering Egypt, they might even contacted with the Japanese across the India, providing to them unlimited resources, what there was, possibly, changed the conclusion in the Pacific War. Besides the numbers are: 750000 dead Russians, 400000 Germans, 130000 Italians, 320000 Hungarians and Rumanians, plus 500000 prisoners of the axis of which 400000 died in the following months. Astronomic numbers. The best of the German army was annihilated.
It is certainly a close race between the Battle of Britain and the Battle of Stalingrad. I'm not sure that had the Germans won at Stalingrad that they would have had such rampant success. There is a limit to how much territory they could have conquered outright. Stalingrad was the turning point in the eastern war, but that does not mean that it was critical from the Soviet perspective. Certainly it was very important, but the Soviets may have been able to continue fighting and still beat the Germans. Considering this, Moscow could be seen to be more critial, as the loss of Moscow would have had both material and psycological impact. It really should have been the German goal all along due to it being a rail nexus.
I'm going to stick with the Battle of Britain though, since I believe had this gone the other way, even Hitler's blundering and micromanagement may not have saved the Soviets.
I'm going to stick with the Battle of Britain though, since I believe had this gone the other way, even Hitler's blundering and micromanagement may not have saved the Soviets.
Thorgalaeg
Deity
I know that are only suppositions. But you must have in bill that behind Stalingrado did not exist any more armies capable to be opposed to the Germans from the South.
Hamlet
Manic Depressive
I went with Stalingrad. I'm not a military historian though, so I guess that's just my impression.
dannyevilcat
DESTROYER OF FURNITURE
Well, Stalingrad was the most dramatic battle, and certainly makes for better reading (at least in IMHO), just perhaps not the most important.
Fayadi
Technocrat
I vote for Stalingrad!It was the biggest battle in human history if anybody of you know it.It was a final showdown between Germany's NAZI newest Tiger tanks vs Russian's Red Army newest T-34 tanks.Germany's tanks are far superior but the NAZI is outnumbered by the Red Army.In this battle the Russian are totally and more ready to fight against the Germans than before when they lost a lot of lands to the German at the early battle.That battle involves errr...... 3 million over lives?The battle took 199 days,I remember there is a book called "The Battle of Stalingrad 199 days" but i didnt buy it,just took a quick glance
Michiel de Ruyter
Grand Admiral
This quote is not about Stalingrad, but about the battle of Kursk, which took place in June, July 1943. I voted for that, because it was the last German offensive on the Eastern Front and the largest tank battle EVER.
Why there is no Battle for France (1940) option? It was not the turning point but still very (if not the most) important battle in early war.
As the turning point in European War Theatre, the Battle of Moscow stands far above any other alternatives. After Moscow Germany has no practical hope to win the war.
If you look the dynamic military situation in Eastern Front in 1942-43 then you see that Stalingrad battle was hardly any turning point of the War. Soviets had upper hand in Eastern Front already at the beginning of 1942. They made serious strategical and operational blunders in Spring 1942 what allowed Germans to conduct successful Summer Campaign. And the Stalingrad wasn't also the biggest military defeat for Germans in the war (operation Bagration was).
As the turning point in European War Theatre, the Battle of Moscow stands far above any other alternatives. After Moscow Germany has no practical hope to win the war.
If you look the dynamic military situation in Eastern Front in 1942-43 then you see that Stalingrad battle was hardly any turning point of the War. Soviets had upper hand in Eastern Front already at the beginning of 1942. They made serious strategical and operational blunders in Spring 1942 what allowed Germans to conduct successful Summer Campaign. And the Stalingrad wasn't also the biggest military defeat for Germans in the war (operation Bagration was).
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
Marko, aren't you being a little glib? I'd argue that the Germans were quite capable of winning the war in Russia before Stalingrad, and perhaps even after. The twin trouble of Stalingrad for the Germans was (a) the loss of their mobility advantage by tying up so much in the city's vicinity, and (b) the loss in the battle of their largest cohesive panzer army.
Surely if the Germans had used their mobility to pull a Zhukov in reverse, flanking Stalingrad at some distant point to the north, or shifted their weight early to some other weak spot, instead of focusing maniacally on frontal efforts to capture the city itself, that would have set Russia back years, which in and of itself could have swung the war, nyet?
R.III
Surely if the Germans had used their mobility to pull a Zhukov in reverse, flanking Stalingrad at some distant point to the north, or shifted their weight early to some other weak spot, instead of focusing maniacally on frontal efforts to capture the city itself, that would have set Russia back years, which in and of itself could have swung the war, nyet?
R.III
Well, I don't think he's being glib, if you look at the whole front in relationship to Stalingrad. Stalingrad was an offensive for the Germans, but they were basically only holding the line or retreating everywhere else (at least to the North.) The delay caused by an extremely harsh winter, partisan Soviets behind the lines and the T-34 tank crippled the Nazi war machine, and allowed the Soviets much-needed time. Stalingrad became such a huge battle because it was the fabled "line in the sand" put forth by both parties. That's why Hitler wouldn't allow the 6th army to retreat until it was too late. Once encircled, the Germans got no closer than 15 miles, and Paulus was out of fuel for his tanks by then.
Sure, but it would have had to have been a brilliant, heroic effort, as by that point, the Germans were no longer capable of such dynamic warfare of the type that worked so well against lesser opposition. The Red Army couldn't just be pushed around to allow for flanking manuevers. They would have fought for every yard. The Germans would have suffered huge losses in such an operation, that's why their offensive was so narrow. The Germans were already outmanned by that point.
