What was the most pivotal battle of WW2?

[Vincent Prochelo]

Originally posted by Fallschirmjager


Im afraid I dont understand.

I never suggested that I wanted the Germans to win

He asked what was the most important based on historical outcome.

I answered and then stated what would of happened had one or both of those battles come out differently.

Lets face it if the Americans, Free French, poles and brits (and those they shangheied into figthing for them) had faced the German army at 100% (i.e. not activly fighting or having already won on the east front) then only a crazy man would of said that they could of won.

If im correct the Germans had roughly 85% of their army tied up at any given time in the East.

Even with victory in the east Germany would have to garrison all of Russia with many divisions, so it is not as if they would all be available to fight elsewhere. The Partisan fight would still be bloody and take up alot of resources.

Of course the elite panzer divisions and SS divisions would be elsewhere and the invasion of France probably would not have happened.

Berlin would have been nuked in '45 though...

-V

[screamer]

pivotal, german treatment of the population of captured terretories, what if the had treated the population of captured soviet terretories well

[rosary]

Originally posted by screamer
what does pivotal mean??

What battle was most critical to the final outcome of the War.

I think that there is no single battle or event that decided WW2. But I do admit that WW2 is an endless source of fascination for many people. Me included.

[Fallschirmjager]

Even with victory in the east Germany would have to garrison all of Russia with many divisions, so it is not as if they would all be available to fight elsewhere. The Partisan fight would still be bloody and take up alot of resources.

While true Germany left skeleton forces in France to hold it.
Look at it which ever way you want. If the East front would of fallen apart Germany would of won the entire enchillada.

Berlin would have been nuked in '45 though...

Also not true.
If the East front would of been won. England would of fallen or sued for peace. Then wheres that B-29 gona take off from?
Even though I will agree that America won the battle in Western Europe, what most ppl overlook is that the battle had to be launched from somewhere. America didnt own any of that.
If England has stayed out of the war and only let us use their nicley located island then that would of done enough to help us win.

Also if the Germans had won in the easst America would of made pieace with Germany without a drop of blood ever being spilled between the two in Europe.
America in '42 didnt really have anything against Germany.
Since Hitler declared war we felt something had to be done.

America being America doesnt give much of a **** about the world until somnething thereantens its interests. If Germany had only declared war and not gone beyond that and it wasnt convinent for us to go to Europe we never would of gone.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Berlin nuked in 45?

Hmmm the fact that we are assuming many variables here. Why assume the US would even have the bomb if Germany was still dangerous.

The German's were plenty far along on their own plans for mass destruction weapons.
That the US dropped the bomb is a fact, but they were not always first with things.
The Germans had operational jets in a useful way first. They had operational long range rockets in a useful way first.

Then there is the Russian space program. Admittedly not a WW2 detail, but if you look in the history books, the US has been beat in quite a few technological races in the 20th century.

The world might have a different nuclear history if but for a little detail here and there.

Look at the Russian's today, the Ukraine still doesn't like the Russians even after what the Germans did. I would say German policy towards the Ukranian people has to be one of his most costly blunders.
Now if Hitler had of put aside his racist feelings for the peoples to the east, he could have welcomed them as a liberated people.
At least they would have been more happy to see Stalins head on a pole at the time then Hitler's
Remember Stalin was wiping out thousands of his own people long before germany decided to help him do that.

The only thing pivotal about the US dropping the bomb, is that people to this day have to live with the fact that the US doesn't have to fuss over their bluff being called. The US HAS used the bomb. For good or bad, its something they can always refer to.

Hindsight though it's always about hindsight.
Most people are surprised when they learn that the Germans never got around to developing heavy bombers due to the fact they didn't expect to be dealing with a long war (they were going to win in some way first).
Same thinking kept them from adopting a total war production approach till late in the war.
That the Germans enjoyed actual increased production under the onslaught of heavy bombing is a testament to what might have been the case, had they been on a total war production from the get go.

[cpt_Venomous]

dont forget over 80% of Wermacht and over 75% of Luftwaffe perished on Russian front.

[Brigz]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1

Now if Hitler had of put aside his racist feelings for the peoples to the east, he could have welcomed them as a liberated people..

This isn't an option. Hitler would never have cast aside his racist feelings because that is exactly what made him Hitler and exaclty why the Germans were in the Soviet Union in the first place. Being a megalomaniac, Hitler fell into the old maxim that if you give someone enough rope they will eventually hang themselves. When the war was initially succesful and he became more "sure" of his qualities as a great military commander, Hitler began making more and more bad decisions.

QUOTE]Also posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
Most people are surprised when they learn that the Germans never got around to developing heavy bombers due to the fact they didn't expect to be dealing with a long war (they were going to win in some way first).
[/QUOTE]

Also Hitler's bad decision. He never did see the need for long range bombers. He just didn't like them. I think Goering would have insisted if it wasn't for Hitler. Don't forget, Hitler also decided that the Me-262 should be used as a close support bomber instead of as an interceptor.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Well of course it's ooooobvious those two corporals (Hitler and Goering) were ill equipped to run that war.
Amazing how damaging a small run of luck can be eh.

But then we are talking about what if's.

What if Hitler had had brains heheh. What if Goering hadn't been a fat pig of a lout.

History would sure be different if Rommel had been in charge.

Then again, Rommel was a respectable soldier and likely would never have started that war. But being a noble soldier he did what was asked of him by his country's leaders.

Specifically why it is often frustrating being a noble soldier. Our screwed in the head, no experience, ill learned, often politically motivated (guess that's an oxy moron though) leaders are not noble soldiers on average.

If we had a noble warrior leading this country for instance, we wouldn't currently have our armed forces running around in every conflict we can find, as ill equipped as they are, pretending to be as well off as the average US soldier is.
I have no respect for my country's leadership when I see what they expect of our forces.
The Canadian Forces are being forced to do almost the same impossible deeds in the manner that Rommel had to endure all through North Africa (something incredible with nothing).

[msaario]

More hindsight to come...

...The Germans had long-range "bombers", to name a few, the FW200 Condor (originally a passenger plane?) which was used for recon/convoy attacks and the ill-fated HE177. I have never really compared them to a B-17 (not to mention the B-29), but I'd say they both had potential to be a true long-range heavy bomber (with lots of development). Of course, had the Germans had enough interest, it should not have been too difficult to examine a captured B-17 or B-24 and copy that (they we quite plentiful at the time).

...What if the Japanese had attacked Russian Far East in 1941/2? The mongolian divisions would have been engaged in a fight against the Japs and the Germans might have had the strength or time to take Moscow early on. I am always frustrated when playing the PacWar and see my Army in Korea sitting idly when they could have attacked the Soviet Union... or someone else.

...What if Rommel had taken Egypt? Sure, the arab countries had lots of pro-German powers, but would Rommel drive his handful of panzers thousands of miles through the deserts to attack Caucasus? Had they been transferred to attack/defend against the Allies in India? Or shipped to assist the Army Group South (and perhaps vanish in Stalingrad)? What did the Italian navy accomplish in WWII? All I can remember are the few human torpedoes (??) who actually did something else than surrendered to the first camel they saw.

The rains in Russia had only recently stopped before the Barbarossa started, so, as far as I can tell, there was never much extra time to drive towards Moscow...

I think this discussion in any case has raised some interesting points that are worth a game/scenario/being included in a grand scale WWII game.

--Mikko

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

If anyone is interested, from a wargamer perspective, ie no totally stupid what if's allowed, the Advanced Third Reich game (or Rsising Sun which has the Research rules too), has a very good way of dealing with the matter of "alternative' directions of WW2.

As the game is now a veteran classic, I think it is fair to assume the material has been thoroughly picked apart to maintain credible historical perspective accuracy.

It is a wealth of decent insight on how to realistically wargame out some of the what if notions.

Of course the material is specifically geared to Grand Scale" as that is the nature of Advanced Third Reich.

For those that don't know this game, don't look for the sooftware it isn't a computer game.
They made Third Reich for the computer (based off earlier design of the game). The software is the computer game crud equal to the film crud poster child Pearl Harbour though.

I recently scanned my manuals, and as such, any who wish to see the text of which I comment can always ask me about it.

[Wild Bill]

Pivotal Battles....Hmmm

First, let me say that in my opinion, 1942 was the pivotal year of the war, both in the East and West. The initiative on both fronts went from the Axis to the Allies.

But here is room for discussion. In my opinion the most pivotal battles, ones that changed the course of the conflict were as follows.

Midway - The Japanese lost the initiative here and never regained it.

Stalingrad - Same for the Germans. The loss of the Sixth Army was catostrophic. One man in ten of the German Army on the East Front was lost.

Guadalcanal - The first stepping stone in the island hopping campaign towards the Japanese Home Islands

Kursk - The last great German offensive on the East Front. From this point they began to be pushed back into Germany.

Leyte Gulf - The last Hurrah for the Japanese Navy and Air Force.

D-Day/Normandy - The widening of the second front in the East compromised Hitler and the vice began to squeeze the life out of the German military.

Battle of the Bulge - The Last Great German offensive in the West.

There are many other smaller "pivotal" engagements but in my mind these encounters greatly influenced the course of the war...and could have influenced the war in another way had the other side won.

Wild Bill

[msaario]

Not many Hurrahs for the Japanese at Leyte Gulf. The only (?) big chance they had in 1944 to inflict Americans a crippling defeat was once again spoiled by fog of war as they didn't finish off the jeep carriers.

Not to mention the loss of Nishizawa (89 kills according to some sources - not pivotal as such, but...) in a transport plane!

--Mikko

[Ardle]

Has anybody mentioned Nomonhan yet? Although technically it's just outside WW2 (summer of 1939), this obscure conflict had arguably enormous consequences. For those who aren't familiar with it, Japanese forces got a thrashing by the Russians (led by Zhukov) in a remote part of Mongolia. Why is it pivotal? Because:

[1] the Japanese defeat caused them to change their policy and seek expansion southwards, leading inevitably to a conflict with the US and Britain. Prior to this, the Russians had always been the number one enemy in the eyes of the Japanese, and continental Asia had been the desired theatre for expansion.

[2] This meant that the Japanese would not aid Germany by invading Russia from the east in the dark days of 41, which allowed Stalin to use his Siberian forces for the crucial Moscow counterattack.

[New York Jets]

Having listened to or reading many interviews with German war veterans I have to say Stalingrad was the most pivotal battle of WWII. The clear majority of those asked when they finally believed the war to be un-winnable stated "Stalingrad".

On a subsidiary note I feel that Guadalcanal was the most pivotal battle in the PTO. Midway may be said to be the "turning point" but I feel in total that "The Canal" was the most pivotal engagement.

[Bernard]

Funny everyone answers the same battles
- stalingrad of course, albeit "only" 300.000+ men lost to hitler's side (less than winter 41), true pivotal, like kursk - loss of german initiative in Russia
- midway (end of jap dreams - no carriers and no pilots on pacific makes it difficul)
- el alamein (end of egyptian dreams - but never really a must on hitler's mind to win in north africa)

BUT : everyone forgets the battle of the atlantic.
- according to Churchill, batlle of Atlantic was his nightmare and he went every morning to look at the stats of sunnk vessels.
just think what would have happended if Doenitz had hda double as much submarines.
UK cut off. No US in uk, wich makes i difficult for normandy.

another pivotal (more a what if) : japs use their submarines to go after merchant vessels and make a nightmare to reinforce / send troops accross pacific. no guadalcanal then, what aboutaustrtalia surrendering because isolated ?

submarines have been overlooked a lot.
best regards.

if you think pivotal, there is one.

[New York Jets]

I have never overlooked the contribution of the Submarine Service in winning WWII in the Pacific. In fact I give them most of the credit. They sank 90% of the Japanese oil shipping lost in WWII. We could have gone the whole war and not dropped a single bomb on Japan, conventional or otherwise, and still crippled the Japanese war economy thanks to the US Submarine Service. Once the problems with the torpedoes were worked out in 1943 it was all over for the Japanese.

[thantis]

I wonder if a Japanese attack on Russia (late 1941/early 1942) would have helped the Allies more than it would have helped the Axis????

The Japanese plundered their Chinese garrisions for additional troops to fight the war in the Pacific - which would not have been available if a second (or more like 5th) front had opened up on the Soviet Frontier. US & allied troops would have faced reduced opposition in New Guinea & the Solomons, and may have been able to reach the Phillipines (and cut off the Japanese oil supplies) in early 1944 (instead of late 1944).

Stalin kept a reasonable force in the Far East (upwards of twenty to thirty divisions - depending on what was happening with his war against Germany) to keep an eye on Japan - and if it looked like an invasion was likely, this force could have been reinforced (with an additional 10 - 20 divisions) without taking too much away from his fighting forces on the main front lines.

A Japanese invasion force would have been necessarily an infantry-heavy force, made up of the 25 Divisions available to the Kwantung Army at the time. Vladivostok was basically untenable as a defensive position for the Red Army, and probably would have been sacrificed to provide time to build up defensive lines on the Amur River (and north).

Since the Japanese had no armor capable of taking on a T-34 or KV-1 in combat, the introduction of Soviet Army into the conflict would have heavily tilted the combat in favor of the Russians. Even with the superiority of the Zero in one-on-one combat, the Soviets could have put more fighters into the air to achieve at least a draw.

In general, a Japanese attack against the Soviet Union might have life difficult for Stalin in 1942; Pressure from the Americans/British forces in the Pacific, and a roughly historical timeline in North Africa & Italy, would have made the Japanese situation more precarious & probably result in a shorter Pacific War (with a possible American invasion of Japan in early 1945).

The Red Army might have been to go on the offensive in the East as early as late 1942 (to coicide with the Uranus Offensive - and maybe the troops that historically were thrown away with Operation Mars are sent East & used for an offensive against Manchuria) resulting in twin victories at Stalingrad & Vladivostok.

[jnier]

Where are all of these T-34's and aircraft going to come from?

Using the best equipment and men the Soviets had in the Far East would have greatly increased the liklihood of a Russian defeat in 41-42. The Japanses don't need to win the fight against the Soviets, they just need to tie down as many Russian divisions as possible, so that they cannot be transferred to fight the Germans. Historically, Stalin received intelligence that the Japanese were not going to attack and transferred the best troops in the Soviet army back to fight the Germans in the Battle of Moscow. These troops would not have been available with a Japanese attack.

Also, how & when is the US going to join the conflict if the Japanses are committing their resourse to fight the Soviets?
Probably no Pearl Harbor - No US Declaration of War in December '41.

I think the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor is the most pivotal battle of WW2. A tactical victory but a political and strategic disaster. Allows Soviets to survive (since Japan doesn't attack them) & counterattack the Germans and brings US into the war much more quickly than would have been the case without Pearl.

[jnier]

Where are all of these T-34's and aircraft going to come from?

Using the best equipment and men the Soviets had in the Far East would have greatly increased the liklihood of a Russian defeat in 41-42. The Japanses don't need to win the fight against the Soviets, they just need to tie down as many Russian divisions as possible, so that they cannot be transferred to fight the Germans. Historically, Stalin received intelligence that the Japanese were not going to attack and transferred the best troops in the Soviet army back to fight the Germans in the Battle of Moscow. These troops would not have been available with a Japanese attack.

Also, how & when is the US going to join the conflict if the Japanses are committing their resourse to fight the Soviets?
Probably no Pearl Harbor - No US Declaration of War in December '41.

I think the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor is the most pivotal battle of WW2. A tactical victory but a political and strategic disaster. Allows Soviets to survive (since Japan doesn't attack them) & counterattack the Germans and brings US into the war much more quickly than would have been the case without Pearl.

[thantis]

There was a significant amount of equipment that was stockpiled in the Far East - and Stalin kept it there even when during the darkest days of Nov/Dec 1941 when the Germans were on the outskirts of Moscow.

The Russians wouldn't have needed a huge number of divisions to tie down a Japanese invasion of Siberia. The 20 Divisions that were posted there throughout the war would be enough - especially since the Japanese only had at most 25 Divisions (of varying establishments - and not necessarily at full strength) to conduct this invasion.

As for no US involvement, the reason for Pearl Harbor was the oil & scrap embargo - which if left in place, would have resulted in a crippled Japanese military by 1943 anyway. The Japanese would have to have attacked Pearl Harbor & seized the Southern Resource Area, to have any chance at sustaining their military operations in China (and by extension of our analysis - Siberia).

Even with the Japanese joining the war against the Soviet Union (and with the Japanese faced with an even stricter embargo after this invasion, given our support for the Russians once Germany invaded, Lend-Lease and the such) - the war would not be won for the Axis.

Sure, the war on the Eastern Front would have been bloodier (and taken longer), but in the end Hitler's strategic errors would cripple the Weremacht and the German war effort, resulting in a Soviet victory.

Given the poor conditions of invasion area (very few roads and long supply lines) in Mongolia & Siberia, the Japanese would have been hard pressed to do any significant damage to the Russian forces. Since these were some of the best Russian troops at the time, they could have certainly moved into proper defensive positions (given Stalin's intelligence source in Japan, who would have given the Russians prior warning of invasion) - I'm sure Stavka could properly allocate the resources to fight both the Germans and the Japanese.

WWII would have been bloodier, and probably lasted longer, but the overwhelming material advantages of the Allies would have turned the time and if the Axis lasted longer enough, been A-Bombed into submission by late 1945 - early 1946.

See "The Moscow Option" by David Downing for an alternate scenario for the 1941 - 1942 timeframe in both Europe & Asia.