Most important event in WWII

[Kryten]

What was the most important event of WWII?

Well, I think that you would agree with me that WWII was won (and lost) on th Eastern Front. Sure, the Americans, we British and the Commonwealth all had an effect, but if Nazi Germany had defeated the Soviet Union they would have won the war in Europe.

So, what was the most important event on the Eastern Front? It was not the declaration of war against Russia. It was not the weather. It was not because of the poor logistics. It was not because of the Battle of Moscow, or Stalingrad, or Kursk, or any other battle. No, the most important event was the political mistake by Hitler to wage war against ALL the peoples of the Soviet Union instead of leading a crusade against Communism . Had he done so, then the Ukrainians, the Don Cossacks and ALL the other people who hated Stalin and the Communist system would have led to the collapse of the Soviet Empire, much like we have witnessed in the 1990's (although after a few years under the SS and Gestapo they would have realised their mistake, but by then it would have been too late).

To quote Hitler's own words..."You only have to kick-in the front door and the whole rotten structure will collapse!".
Fortunately for all of us, he didn't "kick-in the front door", instead he tried to push over the whole building......

 

[Rowan]

I went for Battle of Britian,cause it would have been a lot different if old Adolf got to take tea in Berkley Square.
[dance] [dance]

 

[Kennelly]

tough choice,I think all three,stalingrad,Midway and Britain were (everyone on it´s frontline) crucial for the outcoming of the war.
I don´t really think El Alamein was of real importance for the war-another thing it is with the importance of the whole "southern front"
Dünkirchen (Operation Dynamo) is also very important,I think,cos 350,000 captured or killed British or French soldiers would have been a quite heavy strike to the Allies.Probably then Hitler could have been convinced of operation sealion.

 

[tetley]

The most important event of the war was not a battle. It was Hiroshima. Hands down. Besides that one event single-handedly convincing a fanatical Japan to do the unthinkable--surrender--the post-war ramifications eclipse anything else that happened.

Of those choices, though, it's hard but I picked Midway. That should have been a decisive Japan victory, which turned into a decisive American victory. From that point on, Japan was not on the offensive but on the defensive.

I thought about Britain and Stalingrad, but...the Battle of Britain didn't break the Luftwaffe, the same way Midway broke the Japanese navy (and their secret codes). Stalingrad inflicted heavy losses on the Germans, but those were only measly infantry they lost. And it wasn't so much Stalingrad as it was Leningrad AND Stalingrad AND Moscow that turned the tide on the Eastern Front.

 

[knowltok3]

The most important event of the war was not a battle. It was Hiroshima. Hands down. Besides that one event single-handedly convincing a fanatical Japan to do the unthinkable--surrender--the post-war ramifications eclipse anything else that happened.

One could argue that Nagasaki was required for the convincing as well, but you make a good case.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by tetley
I thought about Britain and Stalingrad, but...the Battle of Britain didn't break the Luftwaffe, the same way Midway broke the Japanese navy (and their secret codes).

I'd voted for the Battle of Britain not for what was won, but what wasn't, and Midway was sort of the same way. The IJN was still a dangerous, professional force after Midway (witness Guadalcanal), just as the Luftwaffe was after Oct. 1940, but in both cases, the "6 months of chaos" factor had waned. In other words, by failing to win at Midway and the Battle of Britain, the axis made it very difficult to win the war, since in both cases, production of key weapons (carriers, warships, fighters) finally reached a point where production could outpace losses.

By way of a cheezy comparison, "Axis and Allies" the game sort of works in the same way; e.g. if the Axis doesn't put themselves in a winning position in the first few turns, they lose, whenever that might be, because the productive power of the allies starts to become more of a factor than the firepower of the axis.

 

[knowltok3]

By way of a cheezy comparison, "Axis and Allies" the game sort of works in the same way; e.g. if the Axis doesn't put themselves in a winning position in the first few turns, they lose, whenever that might be, because the productive power of the allies starts to become more of a factor than the firepower of the axis.

So true. I have spent literal months of my life playing A&A. A fun game in all respects.

 

[D.Shaffer]

It's hard to pick THE turning point, mostly because I dont think you can really decide. We dont really know how things would have turned out if such and such were different. One thing I think was VERY important is not even mentioned. That being Japan's decision to head south into SE Asia. This set into motion its war against Britain AND the US. If Japan had gone with another camp, they would have pacified China first, and then likely have headed north into the Soviet Union. The war would have been very different then.

 

[tetley]

If it's between Stalingrad and Battle of Britain I have to pick Britain. There's a good reason it's called that and Stalingrad isn't called "The Battle of Russia".

 

[DingBat]

Most important event?

None of the above.

The most important event was the dropping of the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Changed the world in an instant.

/bruce

 

[knowltok3]

One thing to keep in mind is that Most Important EVent, and Turning point aren't always the same thing. Midway was the turning point in the Pacific, But I think the Atomic bomb beats it in the Pacific war (and perhaps the whole war too. You guys make a good case).

I still stick with Britain becaue if that had gone the other way, the whole war would have been radically different. Stalingrad was a maybe different if changed, and while the atomic bomb had important implications, the shape of the post war world was already set at that point.

 

[commie_21]

I voted for Moscow for a good reason. If the Germans had won they would have captured the political and rairoad hub of Russia. If the Russian government hadn't already surrendered, it would be hard-pressed to win any more battles. If Russia had surrendered, that would give Germany the factories in the Ural Mountains and freed up troops to send to France or the Mediterrenean. If troops had been sent to those theaters, the results of the war could have changed drastically.

 

[Blitz79]

Japan attacked USA to get oil and steel from the European colonies, no? How would Japan mount a successful attack into Siberia (of all places!) without an effective armoured core and steel supplies blocked by American sanctions? The idea that a Japanese attack would have been decisive is false. It would have been an expensive diversion. We all know that if you have a large navy you fight Sea wars, not ground wars. The Japanese had already been defeated by Russia a few years before World War Two and had not forgotten it.

Perhaps the German invasion of Yugoslavia turned the war - it delayed the invasion of Russia by four weeks; the period of time in which the capture of Moscow and culmination of operation Barbarossa could have occured before Winter set in. Remember that the first year was the most decisive for the Germans. After that offensive time-frame ran out, they were on a downward slope. Hence, the invasion of an unimportant power had a significant impact on a primary theatre - a lesson to us all not to become diverted from the main objective. (Heinz Guderian was of this opinion and I agree with him).

 

[allhailIndia]

Any war can be won a battlefield. However, that was not Hitler's aim in the Battle of Britain. The aim was to completely crush Britain's morale by destroying their principal cities and towns and taking the war into the very heart of the British Mainland. However, once he saw that his Aircraft were being slaughtered by the RAF, he switched to the destruction of the RAF. However the RAF made it through and Britain had a found a Legion of heroes to rally around and fight with all their might for victory. Therefore, I feel that the Battle of Britain, not only meant that Britain would fight the war, but a significant chunk of the Luftwaffe was shot down and flyer morale as well as Nazi Morale took a beating.

 

[omichyron]

The strength of the German armor was destroyed at Kursk, losing for them the mobility upon which the more competent eastern commanders were dependant. Sure, they would have lost the war anyway without Kursk, but I think that it definately decided things in that it permitted Russia the eastern half of Europe. The resulting political situation did control the next 50 years of international policy and warfare, so it was obviously more important than many of the other suggestions. Stalingrad can compete, but Germany lost in the east more from lack of mechanized forces than infantry.

 

[Ryan]

Some really nice answers.

Another turning point, (not a Battle) would be the Germans continued development of a massive field/artillery gun. This was stopped and instead research diverted into rocketry.

If the Germans developed this field/artillery gun, it could possibly rain shells on England within a short period of time which would have been a more effective and devastating weapon, rather than the development of the V2 rocket which was seen more as a weapon of terror.

This could have put England and Russia out of the war early, thus limiting the effectiveness of US bombers and allied forces, not to mention looking for an alternative staging base.

Also the cost, materials and time to produce rocket fuel as opposed to the propellant used to launch artillery shells.

Also it being mobile, ie transported on railways, or built within mountains can shield this weapon from allied bombers.

Just my 2 cents worth, as the the answers were highlighted.