which were the most decisive campains of WW2?
- Thread starter stalin006
- Start date
:tank: :tank:
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
The Eastern Front, as a whole.
Mad Bomber
Commander
There were four major campaigns in WW2
1) Russian Campaign V. germany (43-45)
2) American Campaign V. Japan (42-45)
3) American & British campaign in Western Europe (44-45)
4) British & American Naval Campaign (including the Battle of Britain) (39-43)
Others were significant (germany V. Russia 41-43) but these are the campaigns that led to the allied victory.
1) Russian Campaign V. germany (43-45)
2) American Campaign V. Japan (42-45)
3) American & British campaign in Western Europe (44-45)
4) British & American Naval Campaign (including the Battle of Britain) (39-43)
Others were significant (germany V. Russia 41-43) but these are the campaigns that led to the allied victory.
insurgent
Exhausted
The Operation Barbarossa and the consecutive Russian campaign on Germany were by far the most decisive, determining, and important ones.
The 1940 German campaign (or Westfeldzug) was the single most decisive, it is also the Blueprint of Blitzkrieg. It kept the Western allies out of a significant role for almost 4 years and no other WWII campaign has achieved something similar.
Operation Barbarossa was mostly based on the success of the Westfeldzug but never achieved its direct and intended impact, i.e. destruction of the SU. The resulting East Front war was probably the most dominant factor in WWII and decisive from the point of view from Nazi destruction but spread out over 4 years. The Westfeldzug only took a couple of months.
NOTE: there is a lot to be learned from German WWII tactics, Stormin Normans Gulfwar campaign followed the blueprint in detail. But I disapprove of war in general and anything Nazi related in particular. War should be avoided by any means. If it can not fast, surprising, decisive and with mass deployment of superior forces is the best option imho.
Operation Barbarossa was mostly based on the success of the Westfeldzug but never achieved its direct and intended impact, i.e. destruction of the SU. The resulting East Front war was probably the most dominant factor in WWII and decisive from the point of view from Nazi destruction but spread out over 4 years. The Westfeldzug only took a couple of months.
NOTE: there is a lot to be learned from German WWII tactics, Stormin Normans Gulfwar campaign followed the blueprint in detail. But I disapprove of war in general and anything Nazi related in particular. War should be avoided by any means. If it can not fast, surprising, decisive and with mass deployment of superior forces is the best option imho.
insurgent
Exhausted
Yes, it may be that the Western Campaign was extremely significant, but my point is that the Eastern and the failure of the Eastern led to the defeat of Das Dritte Reich 
D).
D).
Switch625
I don't care.
One of the voters didn't think the Russian campaign was decisive. Who is the mad fellow?
Mad Bomber
Commander
The MOST decisive:
Can't really say that any one campaign of the 4 I listed previously have more importance than the others. To those arguing for the Eastern Front I would argue that IF the US was not in the war, then Germany would have no reason to prepare for any campaign in the western front. Germany could place all of its land power in the Eastern front & all of its factories would be intact & would have plenty of fuel & ammunition to supply its troops (one of the most glaring deficiencies in the German army was the inability to adequately supply troops) IF the pacific campaign did not happen then Japan would have most likly invaded Siberia in the east, assuming that Germany gave advanced tank designs to Japan it would seem possible that these two combined attacks would be successful, and end WW2 with an AXIS victory! If the Naval war of 39-43 was lost then britain would have been taken out of the war & would have effectivly taken America out of the Western Campaign
As far as the 1940 campaign against france, How can you consider it decisive if it did not end the war? That would be the equivelent of saying the battle of Fredricksburg was more important than the battle of Gettysburg.
Can't really say that any one campaign of the 4 I listed previously have more importance than the others. To those arguing for the Eastern Front I would argue that IF the US was not in the war, then Germany would have no reason to prepare for any campaign in the western front. Germany could place all of its land power in the Eastern front & all of its factories would be intact & would have plenty of fuel & ammunition to supply its troops (one of the most glaring deficiencies in the German army was the inability to adequately supply troops) IF the pacific campaign did not happen then Japan would have most likly invaded Siberia in the east, assuming that Germany gave advanced tank designs to Japan it would seem possible that these two combined attacks would be successful, and end WW2 with an AXIS victory! If the Naval war of 39-43 was lost then britain would have been taken out of the war & would have effectivly taken America out of the Western Campaign
As far as the 1940 campaign against france, How can you consider it decisive if it did not end the war? That would be the equivelent of saying the battle of Fredricksburg was more important than the battle of Gettysburg.
marshal zhukov
good economist wannabe
Eastern Front was the most important of the war, there is no doubt that Hitler lost the war there.
EdwardTking
Deity
Arguably WW2 was a moral and
an application of science and technology war.
The Germans had developed a professional army, navy and air force each of which was significantly better than any other country's army in terms of all of (a) equipment, (b) organisation, (c) strategy, (d) tactics and (e) training.
The Japanese had developed a mobile jungle fighting
strategy that surprising the British; and an air/naval
coordination that surprised the Americans.
WW2 was very much about the allies conceding, but by
fighting hard slowing down the loss of territory, relying solely on
sacrificing numbers and on logistics delaying the enemy;
until the Germans and Japanese became over confident,
overreached themselves and made mistakes; while trying
to apply superior allied manufacturing organisation and
overall numbers to neutralise the technological superiority of
the Axis until the Allied had acquired technical superiority.
Although many people see the German - Russian campaign
as most significant because the numbers of infantry, armour and artillery were greatest there; this was not where the technological edge was. The technolgical edge was more critical in air and naval wafare and in researching new weapons.
Even if the Germans had been more successfull there either by penetrating further, (e.g. by capturing Moscow the Russians with factories thousands of miles away and supplied by the US could have fought on) or had better defended, against the Russian attacks; they would still have lost.
The reason that they would have lost was because they would have had no defence to US chemical and nuclear bombing.
There were to my mind four decisive campaigns:
(1) The campaign for people's hearts and minds.
Both Hitler and the Japanese were quite
unsuccessful in acquiring allies that were
prepared to fight really hard for them.
The Lithuanians, Latvians and Esthonians
fought to re-establish their states only.
The Finns fought to recapture territory
they had lost from the Russians and to
avoid being invaded by Germany; but
declined to complete the encirclement
of Leningrad (St Petersberg.). The Italians
fgihting was patchy and the Hungarians and
Roumanians were less interested in dying
to establish German racial superiority.
With the exception of Czechoslovakia which
made tank and Roumania which provided oil;
Hitler was unable to make good use of any
of the captured countries. Indeed the iron ore
of neutral Sweden was more useful than the
arms plants in FRance.
In contrast; countries and people were loyal
to the Allies. Polish airmen fled to England
and were the most successful pilots.
India despite wanting indepenence remained
loyal and Indian troops fought in Africa and Asia.
(2) The Intelligence campaign.
The UK clearly won this for the allies; after having
been helped by the Poles to penetrate ULTRA.
(3) The Scientific Campaign
The Allies clearly won this by first devloping radar
and then nuclear bombs (Hiroshima and Japan).
The Germans were ingenious engineers; developing
dive bombers, rocket plane, missiles, pilotless
bombers and remote controlled anti-tank robots;
but none of these were really cost effective.
(4) The Survival Battles
Clearly for long term manufacturing and science
to apply; it was necessary for the Allies to survive,
create delays and occasional checks.
There are to my mind 4 key battles:
(a) Evacuation from Dunkirk.
Simple survival. Without a British army in Britain;
Hitler could have captured Kent by parachutists
and airlifted in reinforcements (as was the case
in Crete).
(b) Battle of Britain (air)
This was the first successful check
and had a number of key benefits.
Firstly it meant that the German
could not expect to destroy the British
navy by bombing and so could not invade;
secondly it meant that trhe Germans could
not stop British factories from producing
arnaments. Thirdly the Germans lost
many good pilots as casualties or prisoners.
(c) Battles for Greece (including Crete)
Although Hitler won these battles and occupied Greece;
this was to his great disadvantage; his great
mistake was to fight those battles at all.
Greece was of little benefit; it had some chrome ore;
but the Germans could probably have bought that
without invading.
The invasion of Greece delayed the invasion of
Russia by 6 weeks. Although Stalin wasted this
time; it meant that the Germans had 6 weeks
less in the time between the spring thaw and the
autumn rains when the roads were passable
and the countryside was dry and hard enough
for armour and other tracked behicles to move.
(d) Battle For Moscow
If Hitler had captured Moscow and Stalin;
the Russians would have been very disrupted.
an application of science and technology war.
The Germans had developed a professional army, navy and air force each of which was significantly better than any other country's army in terms of all of (a) equipment, (b) organisation, (c) strategy, (d) tactics and (e) training.
The Japanese had developed a mobile jungle fighting
strategy that surprising the British; and an air/naval
coordination that surprised the Americans.
WW2 was very much about the allies conceding, but by
fighting hard slowing down the loss of territory, relying solely on
sacrificing numbers and on logistics delaying the enemy;
until the Germans and Japanese became over confident,
overreached themselves and made mistakes; while trying
to apply superior allied manufacturing organisation and
overall numbers to neutralise the technological superiority of
the Axis until the Allied had acquired technical superiority.
Although many people see the German - Russian campaign
as most significant because the numbers of infantry, armour and artillery were greatest there; this was not where the technological edge was. The technolgical edge was more critical in air and naval wafare and in researching new weapons.
Even if the Germans had been more successfull there either by penetrating further, (e.g. by capturing Moscow the Russians with factories thousands of miles away and supplied by the US could have fought on) or had better defended, against the Russian attacks; they would still have lost.
The reason that they would have lost was because they would have had no defence to US chemical and nuclear bombing.
There were to my mind four decisive campaigns:
(1) The campaign for people's hearts and minds.
Both Hitler and the Japanese were quite
unsuccessful in acquiring allies that were
prepared to fight really hard for them.
The Lithuanians, Latvians and Esthonians
fought to re-establish their states only.
The Finns fought to recapture territory
they had lost from the Russians and to
avoid being invaded by Germany; but
declined to complete the encirclement
of Leningrad (St Petersberg.). The Italians
fgihting was patchy and the Hungarians and
Roumanians were less interested in dying
to establish German racial superiority.
With the exception of Czechoslovakia which
made tank and Roumania which provided oil;
Hitler was unable to make good use of any
of the captured countries. Indeed the iron ore
of neutral Sweden was more useful than the
arms plants in FRance.
In contrast; countries and people were loyal
to the Allies. Polish airmen fled to England
and were the most successful pilots.
India despite wanting indepenence remained
loyal and Indian troops fought in Africa and Asia.
(2) The Intelligence campaign.
The UK clearly won this for the allies; after having
been helped by the Poles to penetrate ULTRA.
(3) The Scientific Campaign
The Allies clearly won this by first devloping radar
and then nuclear bombs (Hiroshima and Japan).
The Germans were ingenious engineers; developing
dive bombers, rocket plane, missiles, pilotless
bombers and remote controlled anti-tank robots;
but none of these were really cost effective.
(4) The Survival Battles
Clearly for long term manufacturing and science
to apply; it was necessary for the Allies to survive,
create delays and occasional checks.
There are to my mind 4 key battles:
(a) Evacuation from Dunkirk.
Simple survival. Without a British army in Britain;
Hitler could have captured Kent by parachutists
and airlifted in reinforcements (as was the case
in Crete).
(b) Battle of Britain (air)
This was the first successful check
and had a number of key benefits.
Firstly it meant that the German
could not expect to destroy the British
navy by bombing and so could not invade;
secondly it meant that trhe Germans could
not stop British factories from producing
arnaments. Thirdly the Germans lost
many good pilots as casualties or prisoners.
(c) Battles for Greece (including Crete)
Although Hitler won these battles and occupied Greece;
this was to his great disadvantage; his great
mistake was to fight those battles at all.
Greece was of little benefit; it had some chrome ore;
but the Germans could probably have bought that
without invading.
The invasion of Greece delayed the invasion of
Russia by 6 weeks. Although Stalin wasted this
time; it meant that the Germans had 6 weeks
less in the time between the spring thaw and the
autumn rains when the roads were passable
and the countryside was dry and hard enough
for armour and other tracked behicles to move.
(d) Battle For Moscow
If Hitler had captured Moscow and Stalin;
the Russians would have been very disrupted.
Leglaen
Ajacied
If the Eastern Front had not existed, then Hitler would have been given free reign for Sea Lion and the operation of the Afrika Korps. Just imagine Hitler with most of the world's oil. Scary!
Leglaen
Ajacied
I agree with you on most of your ideas however I am confused about the above two sections: you state two different opinions. Help? Thanks.
Switch625
I don't care.
Originally posted by Leglaen
I agree with you on most of your ideas however I am confused about the above two sections: you state two different opinions. Help? Thanks.
To me, they are not two separate opinions. He did not say the Soviet Union would be defeated, he said they would be badly disrupted. If Moscow had fallen, there would have been chaos, confusion, etc., but they still would have continued fighting. There was simply too much of the Soviet Union for Germany to be able to conquer enough of it to force a Soviet surrender.
marshal zhukov
good economist wannabe
Equipment
This might had been true in the beginning of the war,
In terms of equipment, T-34 was better than any german tank that invaded Russia. And the German Tiger was hard to build if you compare it with the T-34
The Germans failed to develop a long range bomber, The Americans had plenty of them. (B-17).
Tactics :
The Soviets showed to be just as good, if not better, in handling the tactics used in Blitzgrieg. An early example is Stalingrad.
Strategy:
No strategy decision could have been worse than the decision to invade the Soviet Union.
And all this talk about Greece is a HUGE what if.
The Siberian divisions would have had stoped them just like they did in the winter. Don't forget that Zhukov was there.
The germans were superior in training and organization but not in the rest
Leglaen
Ajacied
If the Germans had captured Leningrad as well as Moscow, due to the above-mentioned chaos, then the morale of the Russian people would have sunk to an all-time low. First, their belief in the invincible Stalin and his exhortations that "There is no doubt that Germany cannot stand this strain much longer. In a few months, perhaps in half a year, maybe a year, Hitlerite Germany must burst under the weight of her own crimes..." would have been crushed when he was captured at Moscow along with high-ranking officials.
I quote from Alexander Werth's Russia at War, "There was, in fact, a gap of nearly a year- roughly from August 1941 to August 1942 when the Red Army was extremely short of equipment, and this shortage was very nearly disastrous between October 1941 and the following spring..." (Emphasis added)
The 'evacuation of industry' was in full swing during the Battle of Moscow, but many industries weren't up to 100% until about June of '42-right during the disasters of Kharkov, Kerch, and Sevastopol.
With the capture of Leningrad, the storied 'birthplace of the Revolution', the Russian government would be almost forced to sign an armistice with the Germans. The Russian Army, low on equipment, would face mass desertions and defections and the political comissar would probably have been reenstated as equal to the commanding officer-if the Russians had kept fighting.
Dr. Dr. Doktor
Emperor
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2002
- Messages
- 1,354
Most Important campaigns from a german economic perspective would be the Eastern Front and the destruction of European Jewry.
Hitlers slavery-expedition in the East gave Germany a solid economic boost which it still enjoys today. The anti-inflationary death-camps also lowered the prize of food for some time, leaving space for industrial expansion. Allies were only interested in bombing workers quarters in the big cities. This was also according to plan, since Germany as many other countries preferes to have their working population living in suburbs where they can't take to the streets.
Hitlers slavery-expedition in the East gave Germany a solid economic boost which it still enjoys today. The anti-inflationary death-camps also lowered the prize of food for some time, leaving space for industrial expansion. Allies were only interested in bombing workers quarters in the big cities. This was also according to plan, since Germany as many other countries preferes to have their working population living in suburbs where they can't take to the streets.
EdwardTking
Deity
Marshal Zhukov:
A clarification
The Germans had developed a professional army, navy and air force each of which was significantly better in 1939 at the start of the war than any other country's army in terms of all of (a) equipment, (b) organisation, (c) strategy, (d) tactics and (e) training.
Further down was
... until the Allied had acquired technical superiority.....
A clarification
The Germans had developed a professional army, navy and air force each of which was significantly better in 1939 at the start of the war than any other country's army in terms of all of (a) equipment, (b) organisation, (c) strategy, (d) tactics and (e) training.
Further down was
... until the Allied had acquired technical superiority.....
Yes, it may be that the Western Campaign was extremely significant, but my point is that the Eastern and the failure of the Eastern led to the defeat of Das Dritte Reich
Yes, fully agree to that, as I did in my post. What is the definition of decisive and campaign here? The Eastern front war is composed of multiple campaigns and battles. If decisive means ending the war then in that case the final rush to Berlin gets the price but at that point the Nazis were clearly defeated, although unwilling to surrender.
1) Hitler's strategy was to avoid a war on 2 fronts which the campaign in France achieved. It took the allies years to get back in a significant role. The allied bombing raids were an enormous investment and took an awful lot of lives but never became effective in terms of demoralizing the nazis.
2) He also "allowed" the evacuation in Dunkerque hoping that he could make a deal with the British. Which the British fortunaltely for all of us were not in to. The resulting battle of britain started weeks later and was the last nazi attempt to force the British in to a deal apart from some stupid stuff like Hess being airdropped in the UK.
3) The intend of Hitler never was to stop the war after the Westfeldzug, it was solving one front before moving to the next one.
4) I am not a specialist on the US Civil War, only comment however is that both were battles rather than campaigns if I am not mistaken. WWII has a number of battles that are huge, significant and turning points but not decisive. Stalingrad and Kursk both happened in '43 yet it took another 2 years before Nazi collapse.
Similar threads
