The battle on the western that sealed the fate would be the few months of d-day. But right behind would be the Battle of the Bulge.
My vote would be Dunkirk. That meant that a sizable chunk of the Free-Europeans and BEF were able to escape to Britain, carry on fighting and in the long run that arguably ultimately made D-Day possible in the first place.
It's debatable whether Britain would have stuck it out if the BEF had been crushed and captured at Dunkirk instead of escaping to be re-armed and re-equipped in Britain. It is worth pointing out that for all the defiance remembered some 65 years later now, Chamberlain had only recently been removed from office at the time of Dunkirk, Britain had faced a string of defeats (The scuttling of Graf Spee being about the only exception, despite some local victories in France and Norway both campaigns were lost), Churchill's government was not overly popular and the desire to continue war with Germany was hardly unanimous. If the BEF had been captured and held to ransom, the pro-German/anti-war lobby may well have ousted Churchill on the grounds that there was precious little left of the Army to carry on the fight with and sued for peace with Germany. Without Britain for it to be launched and prepared from, an invasion of Northern Europe almost becomes an impossibility.
Strangy pearl harbour, on the other side of the world. With-out it the americans woudnt have entered.
I think that the capture of the BEF at Dunkrik would most likely made the british come to a peace. But I doubt Chruchill would have.
I would actually agree here. So much is made of British determination to resist in 1940 that we gloss over the fact that some very senior members of government wanted to deal with the Germans. Plus of course it's very easy for someone to say now (And possibly believe it) "We would have fought to the death" knowing that it didn't actually come to that. If the Panzers had started to roll through their own town or village, they may have not felt quite so determined. With the German Army holding the BEF hostage as bargaining chips, it wouldn't take too much of a leap of the imagination to have Churchill replaced by a PM more agreeable to the Germans. Then the situation becomes potentially very interesting and potentially very different. When Japan attacks European colonies in 1941 what happens next?
Most of the resources the Japanese needed were widely available in the Dutch Indies; they could have taken those without seriously upsetting the British.
I agree, once the USA government and powerful industrialist saw that Germany could not win the war, outright, both knew they had to get inthe fighting war to continue the Empire building. Again this is about the political aspects. Good point Noam Chomsky, MIT, gives an excellent source of info on this subject.
FDR and his goverment wanted to join the war against europe already in 1940 but the people didn't want war. i still think that when pearl harbor didn't happen, the American people never would accept war against germany
Yet US was already in shooting war against Germany. I dont think it would have taken too long for American public opinion to accept war.
If the germans had won the battle of britain america would hav joined immediatly because of the power the 3rd reich would have had to counter america
hmm, it might but that would mean that every U-boot would be used against the american eastern shorline so the americans will loos a lot of ships. and there's no way that both parties could controle the atlantic. the kriegsmarine was to small and the american navy wasn't capable to fight off the u-boats.
But the USN could quickly develop ASW weapons & techniques, whereas the Kriegsmarine could never, ever hope to out-produce the USN... Add in long-range US planes, and you have a clear winner.
but don't forget that america has to fight on two fornts and this time, there no british to help, meaning, if there ever has to an invasion, america need a lot of troops for it.