Most decisive European battle of WWII??

yeh your right there us brits would fight to the last even my grandad would hit a couple of germans with his tools

 

Yeah you're right there. Decisive is the word. The Battle of Britain was important and significant, but not decisive. It was not the turning point, although I still think it was the most important battle of World War 2. I definitely think the Germans could have invaded Russia successfully with Britain threatening a second front.

Perhaps Germany would have had a hard time invading Britain, but it definitely would suceed. Britain was not a continental power, hence her army was inferior to most other European countries - it depended on its navy to survive, which in turn needed some help from the RAF.

Secondly, I don't think the Nazis would ill-treat the British. After all, both sides are not very different racially.

 

Probably not. Surrendering soldiers of the Norwegian Army was treated well by the Germans after the invasion of Norway. Basically they took away their rifle and allowed them to go home. Willy Brandt actually escaped the Nazis by dressing up as a Norwegian soldier and surrender to the Germans !

 

Not racially but ideologically the two nations differ, and in my opinion the Germans would suppress the Brits just like they suppressed the rest of Europe. It would just be another occupied country, and they probably wouldn't treat the British very badly but these men still would resist. Just like they did in other countries they occupied, even in the Nehterlands which they considered a brother nation, they would enforce labour, draft for the SS and remove all jews. This simply causes resistance, and resistance calls for a solid occupation force.

 

What??

First of all, the Battle of Britain is not really a battle. It is only a continuous air campaign over the skies of England. Besides, you can't have a battle for a whole nation, if that is the case, I can call the "Battle of Russia" as the most decisive battle.
Sure, the fortune of England and what was left of the free world hanged on the balance. But without the resources of the US and the Russian blackhole that ate up most of 3rd Reich' men and materials, Germany wouldn't have been defeated.
The "Battle of Britain" temporarily stemmed the tide of Nazis victory, but Britain was in no position or condition to go on the offfensive against the Germans. All it did was to prevent its own invasion and possible subsequent occupation.

 

Re: What??

Very well spoken. The British were 'saved' by this battle, and this facilitated the invasion of Europe, but when this 'battle' was fought the British forces were absolutely unable to commit any kind of attack except for small raids on the French coast.

 

If the Germans had successfully invaded Britain, they would have freed up 60+ divisions stationed in Western Europe and a deterrent for use in the east. These divisions would augment the German forces in Russia and help secure a quick victory. Do remember that in 1941 the balance of forces was tipped heavily in favour of the Germans. 60 more divisions would most probably have been good enough for Germany to achieve all her objectives.

If the Germans had succeded in wiping out the RAF in the south, then they would have been able to proceed with Sealion. Without radar, the RAF would now be at a severe disadvantage. A defending air force without radar is as good as a dead air force. It is unlikely the British Army would be able to offer much resistance to the German blitzkrieg, and the Germans would now have secured her Western Front.

 

You should not forget, that in 1940 nothing was clear. There was a threat of German-Soviet alliance which could be very dangerous. Even the question of Japanese activities was considerable...

 

try to look at this the other way. The Germans had severe supply problems in 1941 in russia; what if they had to supply 60 more divisions? It would have been impossible.
I still don't think, however, that the invasion of Britain would free any troops, just tie them to another country - that is, if they would ever succeed. It is almost impossible to start a Blitzkrieg from scratch, aswould have been the case on an invasion beachhead.

 

It seems to me that not alot of people know that the 59 divisions in France were not only invasion deterants, but also to supress the local population of regaining control of France. Just see the troops stationed in France as police men.

 

Precisely. Now such men would be needed to control the UK too, if this country would have been captured. The drain on divisions is obvious.

 

Most Important Battle: "The Raid on Pearl Harbor!"

Okay, maybe I am contradicting my own post of decisive "European" battle. But if the Japanese didn't bomb Pearl, you think the British by themselves will take western Europe? In fact I don't even know if they can defeat the Africa Corps, or maintaining control of the vital Atlantic sealanes.
Russia wouldn't have been able to churn out 50,000 T-34 without American supplies of steel, let's not forget about the all important American canned food, they were favorites among Russians soldiers.

 

Exactly. Russia's whole logistic system used American GMC trucks given to them thru Lend-Lease. I read an a book that when the Russians were read what they would recieve from the US in 1941, one Russian delegate jumped up and yelled "Now we will win the war!". The whole Russian Army greatly depended on what the Americans gave them.

 

Everything except the tanks. The trucks and other supplies were mostly American, but the resources for the tanks were al home-made. Steel, oil and grain all came from the Caucasus area. Imagine the impact on the Soviet war machine if the German had succeded to cut off this area from the tank factories in the north, during the 1942 Summer offensive (Fall Blau).

 

It had been a reality for awhile, until of course the defeat of the 6th Army. Soviet production during the summer fell to a fraction of what it was several months before. The Germans captured the entire wheat producing area of the USSR and about 3/4 of the steel.

 

Yes, therefore Stalingrad was one of the most decisive battles in Europe. Whatever England and the US have done operating from the UK, it all falls in the shadow cast by the gigantic effort put up by the Red Army. The most decisive battle naturally has to fall here.

And I don't believe that any special victory in the west would have released enough German divisions to topple the scales in the east; there were other problems than just manpower that stopped the Germans in their tracks, like supply, overstretched logistics, demoralization and production inefficience.

 

And the fact for every German division there were 10 or more Russian divisions. The defeat of Germany in the East was enevitable after Stalingrad and Kursk, no matter how many divisons they could send over from the west. To put is bluntly, the Russians just had more stuff than the Germans had.

 

I would say that there were about two or thee Russian divisions for every german division, and these were all of doubtful strength. Just before the Ardennes offensive, German intelligence reckoned there to be 555 Soviet divisions facing them, of about 5,000-10,000 men each. This does not stand comparison with a typical CW division, which could hold up to 19,000 men.

 

Good point Roel. I was over-exaggerating about the 10/1 ratio. But you are right about the smaller divisions. In the beginning of 1942, all Russian divisions were cut down to about 10,000 men, and almost all tank divisions were cut down to brigrades and battlions, it wasn't until the end of the war that Russia was back to its pre-war strength. But even considering this, the Russians still had more tanks, planes and men than all the German forces combined.

 

Ah, I don't feel alone anymore.