thanks
djj
History Club
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Hosted by Frank Amato
Most Important Battle of WW II
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Saturday, May 24, 2003 - 03:55 AM UTC
Folks--here's the question of the day, what is the most important battle of World War II? I'll keep tally.
thanks
djj
thanks
djj
Folgore
Member Since: May 31, 2002
entire network: 1,109 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Saturday, May 24, 2003 - 05:37 AM UTC
I really don't think you can name just one battle that was more important than all the others. In a war with so many fronts, victory depended on a number of battles. For example, Stalingrad sort of marks the turning point in the war, but that victory might not have come or might not have been as important if Rommel had won at El Alamein and moved into the Middle East, threatening the Russian's southern flank. One victory depended on another, even if the battles were thousands of miles away from eachother.
With that said, I do believe that the First Battle of El Alamein was of the utmost importance for the Allies. Auchinleck was able to stop Rommel here and the DAK reached its high-water mark. If the 8th Army had been destroyed by Rommel's attacks, there would be no forces of any reasonable size between him and the Caucasas. Not only would Britain have lost the Suez Canal and Middle Eastern oilfields, then, but with reinforcements Rommel would pose a serious threat to the Soviets at a time when they were already suffering reverses in the summer of 1942.
Nic
With that said, I do believe that the First Battle of El Alamein was of the utmost importance for the Allies. Auchinleck was able to stop Rommel here and the DAK reached its high-water mark. If the 8th Army had been destroyed by Rommel's attacks, there would be no forces of any reasonable size between him and the Caucasas. Not only would Britain have lost the Suez Canal and Middle Eastern oilfields, then, but with reinforcements Rommel would pose a serious threat to the Soviets at a time when they were already suffering reverses in the summer of 1942.
Nic
Oberst
Member Since: June 26, 2002
entire network: 851 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Saturday, May 24, 2003 - 06:35 AM UTC
I have considered this question before an I must say that the Invasion of France set the stage for the global conflict. If the French and BEF had not blundered so horribly, the war would have come to a standstill and become a war of attrition. Germany would have had to expend all of their resourses fightling in the West and would not have been able to fight Russia or the British in the Desert.
Andrew
Andrew
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Saturday, May 24, 2003 - 08:29 AM UTC
Two good responses. The question is so big, we should get all you military minds chruning the wheels to select one---just one!
djj
djj
warlock0322
Member Since: January 13, 2003
entire network: 1,036 Posts
KitMaker Network: 152 Posts
Posted: Saturday, May 24, 2003 - 11:35 AM UTC
Don't really know if you could call it a Battle. Due to the complexity of the war one important Battle led to another. Thus making them all important. I.E If Germany won the BOB and England fell were would we have jumped off for the D-Day invasion?
If I really had to pick one and like I mentioned before I consider it a battle it would have to be Pearl Harbor.
Before Pearl we had declared ourselves neutral and were supporting Britain with suppies under the loan lease act. Roosevelt didn't have the clout to sway Congress at that time to declare war.
After Pearl the clout was there and then we could throw our full support behind our Allies without worrying about staying neutral.
Don't know if I worded this clearly It a little late but thought I would put my two cents worth in.
If I really had to pick one and like I mentioned before I consider it a battle it would have to be Pearl Harbor.
Before Pearl we had declared ourselves neutral and were supporting Britain with suppies under the loan lease act. Roosevelt didn't have the clout to sway Congress at that time to declare war.
After Pearl the clout was there and then we could throw our full support behind our Allies without worrying about staying neutral.
Don't know if I worded this clearly It a little late but thought I would put my two cents worth in.
PLMP110
Member Since: September 26, 2002
entire network: 1,318 Posts
KitMaker Network: 409 Posts
Posted: Saturday, May 24, 2003 - 03:54 PM UTC
I'm gonna have to say the Normandy Invasion. For two reasons. The first is the obvious, it gave the Allies a foothold on the European continent to begin the push towards Germany. It also opened the second front that Roosevelt and Churchill promised Stalin, forcing Hitler to direct forces to the west and giving some relieve to the Russians.
Patrick
Patrick
HastyP
Member Since: April 23, 2003
entire network: 1,117 Posts
KitMaker Network: 570 Posts
Posted: Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 12:11 AM UTC
The Battle of Britain. If the Germans could have invaded England there would have been no obvious staging point for the recapture of France and the low countries. The US if they would have been later dragged into the war and the commonwealth may have to have fought from the Soviet Union. With Stalin in control, I really can't see that of happening.
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 12:27 AM UTC
The list and diversification continue to grow. All the Pacific War experts need to step-up. Midway, New Guinea, Guadalcanal, Tarawa, etc....
mj
Member Since: March 16, 2002
entire network: 1,331 Posts
KitMaker Network: 334 Posts
Posted: Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 02:21 AM UTC
You read my mind, DJ. I was thinking Midway from the time I read your question. Not only did it cripple the Japanese Navy in all future operations, but the loss of skilled pilots on the Japanese side hastened the inevitable. Plus, I think it gave U.S. commanders the confidence that they could stop what had been a juggernaut up till then.
I would have to add the Normandy invasion as well. I think the Pacific and European theaters were quite different, presenting different problems and requiring different solutions. On the European side, finally getting across the Channel and coming to grips with the Axis on it's own territory was the first step in defeating them.
Just my $0.02
Mike
I would have to add the Normandy invasion as well. I think the Pacific and European theaters were quite different, presenting different problems and requiring different solutions. On the European side, finally getting across the Channel and coming to grips with the Axis on it's own territory was the first step in defeating them.
Just my $0.02
Mike
SS-74
Member Since: May 13, 2002
entire network: 3,271 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 02:32 AM UTC
I am with Warlock, Pearl Harbour, before that Allied never had any big victory (the best is standstill), after that there was real defeat.
The US involvement in WW II is crucial and THE most important reason why it's an allied victory.
The US involvement in WW II is crucial and THE most important reason why it's an allied victory.
Folgore
Member Since: May 31, 2002
entire network: 1,109 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 05:37 AM UTC
As far as battles contributing to overall victory in the war, I don't think you really can use anything from the Pacific. Germany was the major threat. No matter how successful Japan was initially, she could never win the war alone (which is why the Allies followed a Germany first strategy). Pearl Harbour was obviously important in other ways, but as far as choosing just one battle as the most important or turning point in the war, I think it has to come in Europe.
Nic
Nic
Oberst
Member Since: June 26, 2002
entire network: 851 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 06:56 AM UTC
I still remain convinced that The Invasion of France was the most important Campaign. If the French and the BEF had have acted competently, there would not have been a Battle of Britain, a D-Day or any other battle after 1940.
Andrew
Andrew
WeWillHold
Member Since: April 17, 2002
entire network: 2,314 Posts
KitMaker Network: 185 Posts
Posted: Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 07:18 AM UTC
As others have noted there are many battles of significance in WWII. However the one that really broke the back of the Reich and began an advance that did not halt until the fall of Berlin was the Russian victory at Kursk Orel. The Soviet Union wore down, ground up, and spit out the 3rd Reich.
The Nazi's were a far more dangerous opponent then Japan, so in my opinion battles with the Nazi's were more significant.
The Normandy invasion was also a back breaker for the Reich, but I believe even without the invasion of France, the Russian's would have eventually taken out the Third Reich.
Steve
The Nazi's were a far more dangerous opponent then Japan, so in my opinion battles with the Nazi's were more significant.
The Normandy invasion was also a back breaker for the Reich, but I believe even without the invasion of France, the Russian's would have eventually taken out the Third Reich.
Steve
Folgore
Member Since: May 31, 2002
entire network: 1,109 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 07:39 AM UTC
Obviously, what people define as important differs. The successful invasion of France was, of course, important in making the war what it was. Britain and France could have defeated the Germans, perhaps just by making better use of their tanks (look at the success the British had at Arras with their small tank force). Pearl harbour was important not as a battle, but in the fact that it brought the full brunt of American industrial and military might onto the side of the Allies. Another view of "important" would be looking at turning points in the war, battles the Allies won that made the difference. I don't beleive there can be just one, but there is certainly a lot of room for debate on this topic of turning points, so maybe we should move in that direction.......
Nic
Nic
War_Machine
Member Since: February 11, 2003
entire network: 702 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 09:17 AM UTC
Alright, everyone, time for a curveball, and who better to throw it than a screwball like myself? #:-) I'll say the most important battle was one that wasn't fought. What if, as they had pledged, England and France had attacked Germany when they invaded Poland. Germany did not have any means to fight on two fronts, and their entire Western frontier was a thinly manned shell of bunkers. Granted, neither of those Allies had their militaries fully mobilized, but their standing forces were still almost equal to Germany's. Would the Soviets have still attacked if they saw that the West was willing to stand and fight? Would the Germans have been able to fully stop a combined Anglo-Frankish invasion? Yes, I know there are a ton of variables involved, but this whole discussion hinges on a discussion of variables of what might or might not have been at a given time.
Enough of my ramblings! I just thought I'd throw that out there for everyone to chew on (or up).
Enough of my ramblings! I just thought I'd throw that out there for everyone to chew on (or up).
WeWillHold
Member Since: April 17, 2002
entire network: 2,314 Posts
KitMaker Network: 185 Posts
Posted: Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 11:00 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Another view of "important" would be looking at turning points in the war, battles the Allies won that made the difference. I don't beleive there can be just one, but there is certainly a lot of room for debate on this topic of turning points, so maybe we should move in that direction.......
Interesting comment.
A book titled "The Ninety Days", Five Battles that Changed the World,
covered the following:
Guadalcanal
El Alamen
Operation Torch
Stalingrad
Battle of the Barents Sea
warlock0322
Member Since: January 13, 2003
entire network: 1,036 Posts
KitMaker Network: 152 Posts
Posted: Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 11:17 AM UTC
The Pacific Theater is a whole different ball game IMHO. Did it have impact on the European front some say yes some say no. It could have if the Army solely did the airdrops and the Marines hit the Beaches of Normandy, but I digress that may be a better "what if" in another thread.
I believe all Battles of the Island hopping Campaign were all crucial of equal importance. Midway through Okinawa due to the supply and logistics of the region.
Does that mean one crucial battle wasn't fought in that theater. No I think the most crucial battle was fought not on the land but the Sea at Leyte gulf. Where the Navy literally broke the back of the japenese navy leaving the coastline of the homeland wide open
I believe all Battles of the Island hopping Campaign were all crucial of equal importance. Midway through Okinawa due to the supply and logistics of the region.
Does that mean one crucial battle wasn't fought in that theater. No I think the most crucial battle was fought not on the land but the Sea at Leyte gulf. Where the Navy literally broke the back of the japenese navy leaving the coastline of the homeland wide open
Folgore
Member Since: May 31, 2002
entire network: 1,109 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 11:28 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Alright, everyone, time for a curveball, and who better to throw it than a screwball like myself? I'll say the most important battle was one that wasn't fought. What if, as they had pledged, England and France had attacked Germany when they invaded Poland?
The problem was that the French had promised the Poles that they would attack two weeks after they declared war. The Poles were expected to hold out longer than they did, but by 8 September German tanks had already reached the outskirts of Warsaw and on the 17th the Soviets invaded. Even the promised attack would have come too late for the Allies. Perhaps realising this, the French made a smaller scale attack on the 9th, but it was a dismal failure.
Nic
chip250
Member Since: September 01, 2002
entire network: 1,864 Posts
KitMaker Network: 606 Posts
Posted: Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 05:19 PM UTC
I would say Stalingrad. I know that you all think that they were all important. On the Eastern Front, Stalingrad proved a hard won goal.
~Chip :-)
~Chip :-)
blaster76
Member Since: September 15, 2002
entire network: 8,985 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,270 Posts
Posted: Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 06:11 PM UTC
To sit down and pinpoint one battle as the most significant is impossible. But some little guy has a shotgun posted at my head and says I can only have one. I pick Midway because 1. it ended the Japanese threat this would enable the US to become FULLY committed to the destruction of the third Reich and the original plan was was for a holding action only in the pacific theatre, and 2. by such a significant victory it totally encouraged the US civilian populace which ended any doubt of us winning.
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 10:28 PM UTC
Quoted Text
To sit down and pinpoint one battle as the most significant is impossible. But some little guy has a shotgun posted at my head and says I can only have one. I pick Midway because 1. it ended the Japanese threat this would enable the US to become FULLY committed to the destruction of the third Reich and the original plan was was for a holding action only in the pacific theatre, and 2. by such a significant victory it totally encouraged the US civilian populace which ended any doubt of us winning.
I am not a little guy!
DutchBird
#068
Member Since: April 09, 2003
entire network: 1,144 Posts
KitMaker Network: 230 Posts
Posted: Monday, May 26, 2003 - 09:41 AM UTC
Well, I'll give three, one for each major theatre:
1. Dunkirk. This is actually a non-battle. But if the Germans had pressed hard, and caught the BEF-soldiers, the UK might have been knocked out of the war for a much longer time then it was... it also might have seriously affected UK operations in Africa. Taking this reasoning further, one could argue the fight for Calais, as this supposedly triggered Hitler's order to stop the advance. Most historeans agree that germany did not have the capability to invade the UK because of a lack of landing-vessels.
2. Kiev, 1941 The Germans diverted one of the two PanzerGruppen of Armee Gruppe Mitte to help encircling Kiev... this cost them the time they ran out of during the advance on Moscow in Operation Typhoon later that year.
3. Battle of the Coral Sea, 1942 (?) Though tactically more or less a draw, this was IMHO a strategic victory. It stopped the Japanese advance to the south towards Australia, which left Australia as a base of operations. If Australia had fallen things might have been a bit different.
1. Dunkirk. This is actually a non-battle. But if the Germans had pressed hard, and caught the BEF-soldiers, the UK might have been knocked out of the war for a much longer time then it was... it also might have seriously affected UK operations in Africa. Taking this reasoning further, one could argue the fight for Calais, as this supposedly triggered Hitler's order to stop the advance. Most historeans agree that germany did not have the capability to invade the UK because of a lack of landing-vessels.
2. Kiev, 1941 The Germans diverted one of the two PanzerGruppen of Armee Gruppe Mitte to help encircling Kiev... this cost them the time they ran out of during the advance on Moscow in Operation Typhoon later that year.
3. Battle of the Coral Sea, 1942 (?) Though tactically more or less a draw, this was IMHO a strategic victory. It stopped the Japanese advance to the south towards Australia, which left Australia as a base of operations. If Australia had fallen things might have been a bit different.
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 02:19 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Well, I'll give three, one for each major theatre:
1. Dunkirk. This is actually a non-battle. But if the Germans had pressed hard, and caught the BEF-soldiers, the UK might have been knocked out of the war for a much longer time then it was... it also might have seriously affected UK operations in Africa. Taking this reasoning further, one could argue the fight for Calais, as this supposedly triggered Hitler's order to stop the advance. Most historeans agree that germany did not have the capability to invade the UK because of a lack of landing-vessels.
2. Kiev, 1941 The Germans diverted one of the two PanzerGruppen of Armee Gruppe Mitte to help encircling Kiev... this cost them the time they ran out of during the advance on Moscow in Operation Typhoon later that year.
3. Battle of the Coral Sea, 1942 (?) Though tactically more or less a draw, this was IMHO a strategic victory. It stopped the Japanese advance to the south towards Australia, which left Australia as a base of operations. If Australia had fallen things might have been a bit different.
Coral Sea---May of 1942. Good choice.
thanks
djj
Folgore
Member Since: May 31, 2002
entire network: 1,109 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 03:23 AM UTC
I got another rather interesting one: the defence of Malta. Malta was a serious thorn in the sides of the Axis forces in the Mediterranean, with the planes and ships based there sinking up to 39% of Axis shipping at times. The Germans' and Italians' inability to suppress or take Malta made Rommel's defeat in North Africa inevitable, and as I have said before, though not a large campaign in terms of men, the battle for the Western Desert could have had major consequences had it gone the other way.
Nic
PS -- Good choices DutchBird.
Nic
PS -- Good choices DutchBird.
Noodles
Member Since: January 27, 2003
entire network: 75 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 05:30 AM UTC
i think in the context of the war, that the attack on pearl Harbour was one of the most important.With the attack on pearl harbour,japan drew in to the war the pre eminnet industrial power in the war at that time.Remember,what won the war was material superiority.The panther was said to be worht 4 shermans,the allies could replace them,the gemans could not.If the Japanese had invaded the indies instead of attacking pearl to get a firm supplt of aoil, then the american public may not of been as keen to enter into a "foreign "war.America up to that point had seemed to thread the isolationist path .i.e if it ain't in our back yard it doesn't affect us.i know that eagle squadrons fought with the raf,but alot of americans it seems were not too keen on getting involved in what was largely a european war.
I would say that normandy wasn't the most signiificant battle in the context of the second worrld war but rather in the post war political status of europe.if the allies hadn't occupied most of western europe,would the soviets of given it back to it's prewar political climate?I think not.This is just my opinion,any takers?
I would say that normandy wasn't the most signiificant battle in the context of the second worrld war but rather in the post war political status of europe.if the allies hadn't occupied most of western europe,would the soviets of given it back to it's prewar political climate?I think not.This is just my opinion,any takers?
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 KitMaker Network and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.