Most decisive European battle of WWII??

Hmmm, now I have never heard of the US chickening out before the war is over...

Indeed Lyndon. This is definitely the most important, the largest and the most impressive battle of the war, and it is a missed opportunity that Hollywood hasn't taken it yet. After all...

This was the larget battle in the history of Man.

 

I don't mean they would chicken out - but if Roosevelt took them to war against Germany before Pearl Harbour, how long would an isolationist-inclined American Public have supported that?

They were sore enough about the 'Germany first' policy as it was...

I reckon political pressure would have ensured a cesae-fire, at the least.
America is a staunch foe, who does not give up lightly once involved.
But getting dragged into a war for no other (perceived) reason than to protect England, the well-known colonial power who dragged the US (again perceived) into WW1?

 

I think there were enough influential people in the U.S., who knew enough, to get the U.S. into a war with Germany and keep it involved int he war. There's a bit of love-hate relationship between the U.S. and the U.K. A German invasion of the U.K. would lilkely have met with public support in the U.S.

 

Uhm, your last sentence would mean that some Americans would support a German invasion of Britain?

 

Whoops, no way, I meant the opposite. A German invasion of Britain probably would have probably have generated a large wave of public support for the British. But the isolationists, and the fearful, would have still been a significant factor.

 

I cast my vote for Stalingrad

It nearly wiped out the entire Romanian and Italian forces in Eastern Europe. It wiped out the ENTIRE 6th Army, perhaps the strongest of all Whermacht Armies
It kept the germans from advancing into the oil rich Caucuses
It was the first time in Germany's entire history that a Field Marshall surrendered
It detracted elements of Army Group Center to try to releive it, thus releasing more pressure from any further drive on Moscow
It showed the mobile blitkreig tactics could be stalled in static attack
It showed the weaknesses and overextension of Germany's supply lines
It showed the German High Command's inflexibility in its tactics
If Germany had taken Stalingrad there would have never been a Kursk
German armies were allowed to retreat only after Stalingrad

As for the British, USA France thing

Most Americans love to bash the French, et they fail to realize the french helped us more than perhaps any other country ever. They helped us win our independence and we doubled the size of our country by the Louisiana purchase. Most Americans have no idea what Lafayette or the French Navy did to help the 13 Colonies and in that regard I will always love the French

Most Americans view the Brits in a very friendly way.
On a trip to England I was surprised to find out how many Brits thought we (The Yanks) didn't like them.

Most American's really dont want to be involved in international affairs. We want to live a peacful life and return to the relative isolation we had pre WWI. I wont go on cuz this isnot the place

I love Europe and all Europeans, except the Bulgarians
just kidding

 

Don't kid yourself. The French didn't help you because you wanted independance. The French were only on your side purely for selfish reasons. To strengthen their own grip on North America by blunting Britain's strength and because Britain was always France's enemy. This came to a head early in the 19th Century with Napoleon. Did Americans love France when Napoleon was trying to rule Europe? Nope, you had no interest in 'reciprocating' the favour and you yourselves only wanted France when it suited you. Nothing wrong with that but have you forgotten the wars with France prior to the Revolution when redcoats and colonials fought side by side against the French?

 

American troops marching along Lafayette monument in 1944:
"Lafayette nous voici"(Lafayette here we are).

I don't know why, but apparently at the outbreak of war in 1914, about 80% of americans volunteering to fight in Europe enlisted in the french army rather than the british one, despite the language problem.

 

Could they have been cajuns.

 

Please people, there's a topic for this now, it's out in the Non-WW2-History section. Take your discussion there and let's get on with the most decisive battles here. Thank you!

 

Sorry Roel. My apologies. Can't you move these posts there? It won't happen again! :cry:

 

Stalingrad also finally confirmed to the Soviets that if you throw enough cannon fodder into the mix you will eventually succeed. It also finally confirmed what an arse Hitler was. The Germans were fully capable of extraditing themselves from the mess that was Stalingrad at even quite a late stage in the battle but they were not allowed to do so. :roll:

 

That's all right. I'm afraid I can't split or move single posts, so once it's done it's done. As long as everyone's aware of the new topic it'll turn out right.

You have some good points about Stalingrad, mkultra, but fact remains that the Germans struck back vigourously after this defeat and won the day one last time in march 1943. After Kursk such a sudden turn of fortunes was no longer possible.

 

That's why we both agree that Kursk was the most decisive battle of WW2 Roel.

After Stalingrad, the Germans still retook Kharkov, stabilised the southern front, and mounted the Kursk offensive. They could still dictate events to the Soviets post Stalingrad. After Kursk the Germans couldn't dictate anything. All they could do was react to whatever offensives the Soviets threw at them.The Soviets had the initiative post Kursk and this remained until Berlin.

 

So this was the most decisive battle for the Eastern Front. How about for the Western Front, or the Pacific? My votes go to the Battle of the Bulge and Guadalcanal, respectively.

 

Well, I know many people will not agree but the most important battle of the eastern front automatically means it was the most important battle of the entire war. As we have discussed before the eastern front was the crucial theatre. That's where Germany was defeated.

The western front I would say El Alamein or Normandy. If the Afrika Korps had won at El Alamein and continued pushing east to the oil fields of the middle east then things might have been different. However I'm not sure if the Germans would have had the resources to continue operations in that area as Stalingrad and major developements in Russia were happening at the same time and Hitler in no way would have diverted many reinforcements to Africa. Besides with America now in WW2 and their troops soon at the front the middle east and North Africa might have been taken back with combined efforts of the British and Americans.Therefore I'd plump for the battle of Normandy as the most important battle in the west. This was the one battle where the Germans began being pushed back in Europe. To my mind Italy and Sicily were secondary theatres and a waste of resources. There is no way any Allied offensives would have pushed over the Alps into Germany so what was the point? It's like invading Norway! It's not going to take you very far before you can go no further.

The sobering thought is that only two battles in the west were on the scale of the many massive battles that took place in the east. Normandy and the Bulge.

As for the far east and Japan, I'm afraid I show my lack of knowledge there. I would plump for the Battle of Midway as the Japanese didn't threaten to take much more of the Pacific after that and were contained but I'm not an expert on the far east just like a lot of people are not much up to speed on the eastern front. It's strange considering my grandfather was in the British army fighting the Japanese from the Indian border to Rangoon in Burma.

 

I'd go with you on that too, Lyndon. Specifying the most decisive battle in the west as the closing of the Falaise Gap, which sealed the fate of every armoured unit in the west and ensured that these units could never fully recover (which they never did). The Battle of the Bulge, as I argued before and even worked out into a full-sized history essay for school, could never end succesful for the Germans and therefore wasn't decisive at all.

Yet neither of these battles even remotely approached the size or impact of the great Eastern clashes, such as Kursk and Stalingrad. The Ardennes offensive was the largest single-goal offensive on the Western front; 200,000 German soldiers participated. This is less than half the amount of Kursk and a little over half that at Stalingrad.

 

Roel, as far as I can work out around 900,000 German troops were involved in the battle of Kursk. Soon after Kursk had fizzled out, the autumn and winter of 1943 came to see the battle for the River Dnieper (as it's called) which involved the taking back by the Soviets of cities such as Kharkov, Krasnograd, Dnepropetrovsk on the east side of the river Dneiper and Kiev on the west. Over 1,240,000 Germans (and 2,600,000 Soviets) clashed in this bitter struggle over a wide front which then lead to the winter 1944 battles which were also as huge in scope. After the early 1944 winter/spring battles it then lead into the summer 1944 battles which were even bigger and then so on and so on. It was just one huge offensive after another on the eastern front that alternated between north, central and south fronts pushing forward but it was more or less continuous. It's funny how many people only think of Barbarossa, Stalingrad, Kursk and Berlin as all there was to the eastern front. In reality there was so much more which is why I find the eastern front the most fascinating to study.

I find it amazing how much coverage and prominence the likes of the Italian campaign and Anzio and Monte Casino are given when at the same time on the eastern front from Dec 1943 to May 1944 absolutely HUGE and devastaing battles were taking place which most people have never even heard of. I doubt many people would have heard of the Cherkassy-Korsun pocket, Zhitomir, Vinnitsa, Uman, Berdichev, Kemenets-Podolsk pocket (otherwise known as the Hube pocket), Ternopol, Brody, Kowel etc etc.

Mid Dec 1943 to mid April 1944 in the Ukraine saw the Soviets lose 7,500 tanks and SPGs and the Germans 2,500. Somehow, a monestary on top of an Italian hill is more well known. :angry:

 

You give yourself the reason for the widespread ignorance: while it actually was a continuous string of huge battles, campaigns and offensives, people would rather choose single battles out of the total to focus on. They do just that on the Western front, and all other fronts; don't think nothing else went on along the front during the greater battles in the West, neither. I don't know why the fact is almost ignored that a military campaign is a flow of continuous fighting with some organizational peaks. But in the east, all attention falls on Stalingrad and Berlin, and to a lesser extent Kursk even though its impact was greater in a strictly military sense. Only after much searching and some good sources will you know about the other battles, or rather, about the whole campaign.

Personally, I don't know any of the names you wrote down, either. The later years are more my specialty (as in: after Bagration).

 

The only event determining battle of the west was, the battle of Britain. It wasn't a big battle but was very important.