Most decisive European battle of WWII??

I still think the British don't recieve enough credit, whereas they sacrificed most. The country empoverished itself and exhausted another generation, just to keep fighting. The American effort however great does not stand comparison with that, because the USA are a far greater and economically stronger country; they can 'handle it'.

 

Yet another argument to support my stand (that the Battle of Britain was important). I'm just arguing for fun's sake. So don't get angry...

If Britain had been defeated, perhaps the Germans would have had to keep 30 or so divisions in Western Europe. If they had sent the other 30 to North Africa instead of Russia, perhaps the outcome of the war may have been different.

North Africa would have been relatively easy to take over once the British had been defeated. The Axis would have absolute control over the mediterranean, and coupled with the inability of the Allied forces to resupply from British bases, Rommel could easily have rolled across North Africa, then proceed to squash the oil-rich middle east under the tracks of his panzers. Now, notice that the southern flank of the Caucases lies near Central Asia? These 30+ divisions could then proceed to open up a "second front" of sorts, this time forcing the Russians to defend their most important source of oil (Over 70% of Russian oil came from the Caucases) and diverting precious divisions away from the struggle with the main German thrust to deal with a relatively minor (considering the scale of the Eastern Front) but potentially deadly army.

This move would also surround neutral Turkey, thereby convincing her to join the Axis and giving the Germans a base from which they could operate against the Russians.

 

Even without Britain beeing defeated, Germany could have conquered the middle east, if Hitler had not chosen to attack Russia.

 

Yes, if he had decided to do first things first then the outcome of the war in the east may have been different, and therefore the war itself. But the view you present gives more credit to the North Africa campaign than it does to the Battle of Britain; as I said before, even if the Germans had been able to defeat the RAF they still wouldn't have had a suitable amphibious assault fleet. And the Brits were still master of the seas, so such operations would have been difficult anyway.

 

"The Battle of Britain" would have encompassed operation sealion if it had taken place.

Without the RAF, the Royal Navy would have been quite vulnerable to an air attack. Take the Bismark for example - without air support she was unable to defend herself against obsolete biplanes. The Luftwaffe may have been designed for tactical support of ground forces, but their precision bombing capabilities would certainly have helped them make short work of the Royal Navy.

Amphibous landings would have taken place without much difficulty. The British had no fortified coast, nor would a depleted RAF (assuming the RAF had been chased out of Southern England with heavy losses) been able to stop Stukas from dive-bombing dug-in fortifications to oblivion.

Even if the RAF relocated to the north, without radar the theory that the bomber would always get through (upon which the Luftwaffe developed its doctrine) would have been a reality. It is impossible to concentrate one's forces when you have absoluetly no idea where the enemy would strike next. Even ULTRA could not have saved the RAF. Once airfields have been established in Southern England (Where most of England's major cities are located), then the Germans would have been able to perform blitzkrieg against a helpless opponent.

My main argument was that Hitler could have had achieved victory in North Africa without undermining the German effort in the eastern front, thereby defeating the Soviet Union by opening a second front where it hurts the most. I would not consider the North African campaign decisive at all - Rommel made few mistakes, but it was impossible for him to win so long as the British still remained a threat.

 

honestly i would have to go with Pearl Harbor, if you could call that a battle. It introduced the U.S. and i don't think any of us would be where we are now if the U.S. didn't enter the fight.

 

I'd say The Battle of the Bulge. The Allies may have basically won the war by then, but this sealed the victory, by destroying the only remainig serious German threat. :bang:

 

I would have to say the "battle for technology" in the form of 20 kiloton bombs.

:smok:

 

This was never decisive, it merely sped things up. And the Atomic bomb is the same thing, the Japanese were quite defeated when it was tossed.

 

Roel,

The question was, what battle was the most significant in WW2.

Within the parameters of the question, I stand by my 1st answer.

:smok:

 

If Germany had invaded Britian, America may not have gone to war against Germany, how would that have played out? When Hitler stoped the drive to Moscow in the summer of 1941 in favor of a southern campaign in the Caucus then resuming it again just before winter was decisive too. Winter came and the Russians were able to halt the Germans.

 

No Greg, the original question was about the most decisive battle of WW2. This can't possibly be the development of the atomic bomb.

Ramajama, as I have said before, the Germans were unable to organize themselves into a propoer amphibious invasion force. I don't think they could have invaded Britain even if they wanted to after the loss of the Battle of Britain, and neither would they have been able to do so had they won it.

 

Most Decisive Battle

I'm not sure which battle was the most decisive. D-Day would not have happend if Britian lost the air war for its skies. But the turning point of the war was Dec 11th 1941. By Germany declaration of war on the USA sealed their fate. You say that D-Day is not important that it just quickined the end of the war that is true but what would have happend lets say that buys Germany six months do they make a atomic bomb if they do they can wipe out London or a large part of the Russian army

 

I think the decisive battle (alright campaign) was Barbarossa (June 22, 1941 - December 5, 1941). First the Germans get the Soviet Union directly invovlved in the war, and then fail to destroy them militarily, economically or politically.
I'll undermine my own argument by saying that I think the Nazi's had a chance to win as late as May 1942, had they engaged, and beaten (BIG IF) the Soviets in an all battle in front of Moscow.

 

Re: Most Decisive Battle

If you include th fact that at the time the Germans were being thrown back around Moscow, then i can agree with december 11th 1941. The Soviet factor must be included in any argument about the most decisive battle, because they bore the brunt of German power. Anywhere but in the SU the German forces could never be fully destroyed.

 

Russia

I agree that the Soviets played a major part in the war. But with out the US the would have lasted years longer the same if Russia was not involved.

 

Re: Russia

As long as Hitler was in power, Russia was going to be involved in the war.

 

No, as long as there were Germans he was going to fight.

 

Re: Russia

Absolutely! Both powers helped nail the coffin shut on Nazi Germany.