Three Most Important Battles During Ww2

Discussion in 'General' started by ghvalj, Mar 28, 2005.

  1. Juanra

    Juanra Junior Member

    Battle of Stalingrad: The turning point of the Eastern Front.
    Battle of Normandy: The Western Front attacks.
    Pearl Harbor: The entry of US to WWII.
     
  2. petke

    petke Junior Member

    Europe:

    1. Stalingrad
    2. Battle of Britain
    3. Battle of Atlantic
    4. El Alamein


    Pacific:
    1. Midway
    2. Guadalcanal


    /petke
     
  3. sappernz

    sappernz Member

    Juana while Pearl harbour may have led to USA involvment in WW2 ( they were already involved selling arms and equipment to both sides ) it could hardly be called a battle. It was an attack and it was known it was coming
     
  4. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    Originally posted by sappernz@Jul 22 2005, 03:06 PM
    Juana while Pearl harbour may have led to USA involvment in WW2 ( they were already involved selling arms and equipment to both sides ) it could hardly be called a battle. It was an attack and it was known it was coming
    [post=36738]Quoted post[/post]


    Still amazes me the state of unpreparedness with all the clues that were thrown at them.

    Maybe it was just a case of they wouldn't dare!
     
  5. GUMALANGI

    GUMALANGI Senior Member

    Three only rite?

    1. Midway, crippled the IJN
    2. Battle of Britain, Unfinished business that finished the Germans
    3. Stalingrad, Unrecoveable loss of Wehrmacht
     
  6. karlos

    karlos Junior Member

    Hi everybody. Nice and interesting forum, first post.
    My choice:
    -Battle of France. It changed everybody's plans in the war.
    -Battle of Britain. Sealion would have been a fisco, but UK could have sought peace if they lost the BoB. Without Britain, Hitler had a chance to fight and win a one-front war.
    -Battle of Moscow. Hitler had a chance if he had gone for Moscow earlier, in august. Given time, the USSR recovered and from then on it was very difficult to beat.
     
  7. Gnomey

    Gnomey World Travelling Doctor

    Welcome to the forum Karlos, those are good choices. I look forward to more of your posts.
     
  8. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    Welcome to the forum Karlos. Look forward to your posts.
     
  9. sappernz

    sappernz Member

    Very good points Karlos, especially about Moscow but why do you think the battle of France changed everyones plans when the war had only just begun and the Germans achieved their objective of conquest.
     
  10. karlos

    karlos Junior Member

    Thanks everyone. Well, I think that prior to the fall of France, all players though it would be a kind of WWI again, or better a european war with an only front. If France had stood, we wouldn't even talk about a world war, probably. The battle of France made it an all-out war for the british, woke up the americans, gave ideas to the japanese and made Hitler believe that he could achieve anything. It showed that a superpower can be defeated in spite of its superior resources or population or even the size of its army. The east front showed that it doesn't always happen.
     
  11. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    Originally posted by karlos@Sep 19 2005, 08:17 PM
    Thanks everyone. Well, I think that prior to the fall of France, all players though it would be a kind of WWI again, or better a european war with an only front. If France had stood, we wouldn't even talk about a world war, probably. The battle of France made it an all-out war for the british, woke up the americans, gave ideas to the japanese and made Hitler believe that he could achieve anything. It showed that a superpower can be defeated in spite of its superior resources or population or even the size of its army. The east front showed that it doesn't always happen.
    [post=39190]Quoted post[/post]

    In hindsight, France would never have "stood" as they were out-played and out-manoevered from day one by an underestimated foe which was not lead by museum exhibits with a WW1 mentality.

    They didn't study their foe or read their books (General Guderian's "Achtung Panzer"), they didn't understand the effect of aircraft in warfare, modern communications nor were they strategic planners even though they had Poland as an example.

    It would never have stood up to Blitzgrieg warfare.

    They had one of the largest armies in the world and it crumbled due to lack of planning, leadership and modern training methods.
     
  12. karlos

    karlos Junior Member

    Tactics can be learned, as the soviets showed after huge losses. Of course, the french needed some luck but if they could have resisted a little better the first blow, they had de resources and allies to keep fighting. But what I meant is that the Battle of France was important in the sense that it changed everything. In 1939, it was two old european powers, UK and France, against the nazi regime. After the fall of France, the players would be US and USSR (UK a non-decisive player from 1941 on), and the world would change its political shape for a century.
     
  13. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    Originally posted by karlos@Sep 19 2005, 10:32 PM
    After the fall of France, the players would be US and USSR (UK a non-decisive player from 1941 on), and the world would change its political shape for a century.
    [post=39194]Quoted post[/post]

    I think you really need to expand on the statement that Britain (and the commonwealth therefore) was a non-decisive player from 1941 on!

    I am assuming you mean that their sphere of influence politically had/would change due to the eventual "loss" of empire post war.

    I hope you are not intimating that the British & Commonwealth collective forces was not decisive in the defeat the Germans.
     
  14. Kiwiwriter

    Kiwiwriter Very Senior Member

    Originally posted by karlos@Sep 16 2005, 06:22 AM
    Hi everybody. Nice and interesting forum, first post.
    My choice:
    -Battle of France. It changed everybody's plans in the war.
    -Battle of Britain. Sealion would have been a fisco, but UK could have sought peace if they lost the BoB. Without Britain, Hitler had a chance to fight and win a one-front war.
    -Battle of Moscow. Hitler had a chance if he had gone for Moscow earlier, in august. Given time, the USSR recovered and from then on it was very difficult to beat.
    [post=39100]Quoted post[/post]

    Karlos, welcome aboard, and enjoy the boards.
     
  15. karlos

    karlos Junior Member

    No offense intended. What I meant by decisive is that without US and USSR the war against Germany could not be won. On the other hand, had those two countries been left alone to fight, they could have won anyway. Even only one of them could have won, the soviets taking huge losses and the americans with their atomic weapons. The British Empire was decisive in 1940-41, when it stood alone. From them on, they were very valuable, but not decisive. It has nothing to do with bravery or sacrifice, just boring numbers of men and material.
     
  16. Kiwiwriter

    Kiwiwriter Very Senior Member

    Originally posted by karlos@Sep 16 2005, 06:22 AM
    Hi everybody. Nice and interesting forum, first post.
    My choice:
    -Battle of France. It changed everybody's plans in the war.
    -Battle of Britain. Sealion would have been a fisco, but UK could have sought peace if they lost the BoB. Without Britain, Hitler had a chance to fight and win a one-front war.
    -Battle of Moscow. Hitler had a chance if he had gone for Moscow earlier, in august. Given time, the USSR recovered and from then on it was very difficult to beat.
    [post=39100]Quoted post[/post]

    At first I didn't see what you were getting at by mentioning the Fall of France, but now I do...you mean how it transformed the world's perception of the war being a replay of 1914-18 and the trenches into being a mobile, air-land, conflict.

    Good point.
     
  17. swd1974

    swd1974 Junior Member

    Battle of Britain, Midway and Stalingrad.


    I think these three, if you HAD to choose three are very good candidates. El-Alamein and Kursk, not to mention a hundred battles in China were very important.

    I would discount the Battle of the Bulge as it had been mentioned. At that point the inner circle of Germany was already abandoning hope, the factories had no ability to produce ball bearings, the oil was about gone. People like Goering were aquiring wealth and coming up with exit strategies.

    Hitler lost it so much he made the air force make the ME-262 into a bomber thus eliminating any effectiveness it could bear down the road. It was a forgone conclusion by that time.
     
  18. sappernz

    sappernz Member

    Forgive me for labouring the point but if The Battle of Britain had not been won then any other battles be they 3 4 or 40 would be irrelevant as they would never have been fought. Germany would have fought on a single front and no doubt won.The one thing that must be remembered is that the Battle of Britain forced Germany into a two front war and provided the Allies with an island base.
     
  19. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    (sappernz @ Oct 22 2005, 07:30 PM) [post=40407]Forgive me for labouring the point but if The Battle of Britain had not been won then any other battles be they 3 4 or 40 would be irrelevant as they would never have been fought. Germany would have fought on a single front and no doubt won.The one thing that must be remembered is that the Battle of Britain forced Germany into a two front war and provided the Allies with an island base.
    [/b]


    No matter what else occurred, BoB was the catalyst for the eventual defeat of the Axis.

    Sometimes battles are thought of more for the amount of ground troops lost/involved without a thought for the strategic benefits that are derived.


    Example:
    A comment was made this week on this forum comparing Soviet/German losses. The poster stated in trying to make his point that, "Only 40,000 deaths occurred in the total North African campaign which would have been only 3 days worth on the eastern front".

    A total disregard and ignorance of the value of multiple theatres of operation.
     
  20. karlos

    karlos Junior Member

    Thinking of it, it seems to me that the Battle of Britain should only be considered decisive if we assume that the defeat of the RAF implied the success of Sealion. As it has been stated a lot of times, the Royal Navy by itself was a strong enough obstacle and the germans could never have invaded the isles. So, even if the BoB had gone the other way, the UK could have stood and become stronger later as it did historically and nothing would have changed much once the germans get trapped in the russian stepes. Unless, of course, we think that the british would have accepted peace once the RAF was defeated, which is debatable.
     

Share This Page