What was the most pivotal battle of WW2?

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

People.

Rule number 1

Thou shalt not imply that Les the Sarge has god like wisdom.
Already been proven elsewhere I don't heheh:D

[Vincent Prochelo]

Originally posted by Fallschirmjager


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.

France isn't Russia, dude. Russia is a huge country, and they would have had to have left at least 20 divisions if they planned on holding everything west of the Urals and fight guerillas at the same time.

Also not true.
If the East front would of been won. England would of fallen or sued for peace.

Everyone takes it for granted that Churchill would have sued for peace if Russia had surrendered, but I don't think that is a given. The Brits would have held on. They still dominted theAtlantic and there was no way the Germans were going to invade the UK any time soon.

All they had to do was wait for the U-boats to sink one to many American ships...

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.

I don't think so, there were many places for America to fight. We could have still invaded North Africa and used that for a springboard to invade Italy, Southern France or the Balkans.

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.

If Russia is defeated then what changes is the size of the US Navy which is committed to the Atlantic instead of the Pacific.

Germany was a greater threat to the United States, which is why we chose the 'Europe first" war policy.

Germany would lose because Germany could not defeat the United States even if she had defeated Russia. I will admit a defeat of the Soviets certainly helps Germany allot. And makes the war drag on allot longer. But I don't think the UK ever falls. And the US will not make peace with Nazi Germany.

-V

[Chiteng]

No reasonable historian would claim Germany could win the
war on their terms. To do that, they needed to invade, AND DEFEAT Britain. They didnt do that.

The Soviet Union was a big place and no particular point
was crucial to its survival. There is no way barring Stalin dying
that they would quit.

The German economy under the Nazi never rose above 20%
of the 1918 German war production. It is sobering to realize
just how under-utilized the German economy was.

To consider a German win, is really not possible without Nukes.
Even if they had them, I am afraid the USA had more.
The USA would have been ready willing and able to swap
cities if it meant getting rid of Hitler.

[GYBLIN]

I read in a book somewhere that Hitler designed a bomber especialy to carry a nuke to washington or new york.I cant remember more though.Scarry thought.I still think a Normandy failed assault means victory for germany although maybe not militarywise.Most likely a cease-fire with Russia and another armatice with the allies.Of course once we found out about the attocities all bets would be off...

[Chiteng]

The Prez already knew all about the atrocities and he SAT
on the information. So much for being a man of the people.

[davewolf]

Originally posted by Chiteng
The German economy under the Nazi never rose above 20%
of the 1918 German war production. It is sobering to realize
just how under-utilized the German economy was.

Good point.

Only few people consider how much German economy still suffered from Versailles Treaty + Global economy Crisis 1932 [What is the correct term here?] in the 1940's.

1914 Germany had one of the world's strongest economy powers. Compared to that Germany 1939 was a midget. The Blitzkrieg tactics made the difference. But you all know that.

[davewolf]

Originally posted by GYBLIN
I read in a book somewhere that Hitler designed a bomber especialy to carry a nuke to washington or new york.I cant remember more though.Scarry thought.

You mean the "Amerika Bomber" project, Me 264 (well, actually only one of several parallel projects, as always).



The work on that project already began before the war. So I guess the plane was supposed to do conventional air strikes. (And I'm not sure how far the German atomic bomb program really was. Anyone else?)

Interesting side note:

On July 8, 1943, at a meeting in the Supreme Headquarters, Hitler promised his support for the continued production of the Me 264 to Messerschmitt, but only for maritime uses. At the same time he dropped his decision to bomb the east coast of the U.S., because "the few aircraft that could get through would only provoke the populace to resistance".

http://visi.net/~djohnson/prototyp/me264.html

[GYBLIN]

Very Cool! I wonder how close the nazis's were to the bomb?Its probably wouldnt have made a difference though.

[Chiteng]

The Nazi's were not even close. They made a simple mistake dealing with the storage of U-235. The details escape me.
This caused a deflagration within the building where the project
was being studied. Apparently Uranium is highly flammable
in addition to being toxic. The Building was filled with highly
radioactive toxic particles. They sealed the building off, and left it.
This consumed most of the high grade materials they had at the time. The result was that research shifted to Heavy water.
In effect they were trying to build an h-bomb without a
fission device. Heisenberg stated that they were easily three
years OR MORE away from a workable device - barring espionage.

[Bernard]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
Gyblin I would of course participate on your thread.

But you will have trouble with the focus part. Additionally you will have trouble getting posters to elaborate.

Example, Rune just offered three choices, but Rune you only mentioned three battles with no reason why you like them.

We wargamers all know those three battles obviously, but what is not clear is what you have to say about them.

I build models for instance. If asked to state which one I liked best, Saying Sherman would of course identify a model I liked, but sure wouldn't say why.
Would it be because the model has been sooooo done to death that the variations on type are almost virtually endless. Would it be that a specific company did a major job on a fine example. Is it a matter of price, cause you can find shermans in all price ranges. Or difficulty level, because you can go from raw beginner to master craftsman.

So come on you guys, if you are going to offer up a post, show us you know your material eh:) This is your moment to bask i n the sun, and get use out of all those books you have read.

By the way, reading your post, i wonder what you mean by pivotal ?

You said in one of your mails "something small that changed it all".

For me Pivotal means a "pivot". Of course english (or american) is not my native language but the same word exists in french. it means that something "pivote" which means in this case a turning point.

A turning point is a point where situation changes : you have before, the pivot, then after.
And after doesn't look like before. this is pivotal.

So like it or not, DDAY IS pivotal (without it, no chance to crush germany), so is kursk, stalingrad, battle of britain etc.

if you mean "pivotal but with a very specific item that made the difference because the situation was not so hugely in balance of some side that any result could have come out of it" then you can cross some of these, like DDAY, Bastogne, etc.

So clarify. And allow us to be also sometimes "unclear" for your mind.

Best regards.

[Bernard]

[QUOTE
The German economy under the Nazi never rose above 20%
of the 1918 German war production. It is sobering to realize
just how under-utilized the German economy was.

. [/B][/QUOTE]

is this so ?
i find it hard to believe.

1918 : no aircraft, no tanks, no trucks, only cannons and rifles.
1918 : germany as a whole, the "reich" with or without Austria (including Hungary) or same territory ?

comparing 1944 (peak production) under carpetbombing or 1939 peace production ?

Best regards

[Chiteng]

John Keegan - 'The Second World War'
I will have to hunt for the page number if you insist.

He was using the USA in 1939 as the baseline of productivity.

[Bernard]

Originally posted by Chiteng
John Keegan - 'The Second World War'
I will have to hunt for the page number if you insist.

He was using the USA in 1939 as the baseline of productivity.

i'll just buy the book if you recommend, this is the kind of "behind the scene" stats that i like.

like : why the hell didn't they produce FW190 and stop BF109, PZ IV and no elefant, tigers or big difficult to produce tanks, sublicence in Italy intead of having there obsolete M13/40 etc.

But we already had this debate in WIR.

Bye.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

It is possible my use of the term "pivotal" is not eeeeeeentirely bang on with Websters dictionary heheh.

Overlord is a significant battle, in that it meant the allies were now on the continent in a way that was only going to get worse for Germany's war direction.

They were of course in Italy (and the debate as to the usefulness of that theatre would occupy a thread rather nicely).

The Russians were also hard at work grinding the German army to a pulp as well.

"Pivotal" might have been a sloppy choice in the final analysis.

I am looking for events that seem so minor, and yet had such a profound effect.
Overlord was NOT minor, and as such it's a bit to significant an event to be considered in the light I had in mind originally.

To isolate the discussion down to Overlord is of course not impossible. Here is a good example.
The lead up to the battle involved the use of the Strategic Airforces.
What would have been the effect if the Air chiefs had gotten their way more so, as was possible, and had forced their assets to remain more on strategic targets, and not as much as was the case, in isolating the immediate battlefield zone.

I have a game called The Longest Day (one of Avalon Hills finest massive games, a true monster game in fact).
It makes it very easy to see the impact heavy bombers had on the movement of German forces outside of the immediate battle area.
With those assets elsewhere, the Germans would have seen greatly enhanced mobility in getting reinforcements into Normandy proper from deeper in France.

Now I am not saying the use of the bombers was intrinsically "pivotal" as per my notional intention, but many aspects of the campaign, were not set in stone. Many significant results could have arisen with just a minor alteration of circumstance.

The Germans use of significant armour resources just prior to the massive encirclement that ended in such disasterous losses of material for them around Falaise , had to have had a major impact on their collapse in France.

I still say the most "pivotal" event of the whole of the war in Europe from start to close was Hitler electing to discontinue thrashing the Royal Airforce's airfileds and the beginning of his petulant attacks on British cities.

The RAF didn't collapse, and Germany's illusions of Sealion were made categorically toast, and he was turned away to other matters. I myself think the entire war would have gone done a myriad number of very unique paths, if the RAF had been driven from the skies.
Complete mastery of the air will render even the great Royal Navy worthless. If you disagree I say the words Taranto, Crete, Malta, Pearl Harbour, Midway, Coral Sea, where airpower handed the navy its head on a platter.

No navy, no problem. Hitler without an RAF to consider could have sat back while Goering convinced the Royal Navy to retreat from Southern England.

I am not saying the Germans were prepared or even equipped to take out all of England, but British stubborness makes a lousy defense against bullets.
The British would have sued for peace the same way the Japanese were forced to accept defeat (and personally I think the Japanese were a great deal more fanatical than the British).

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Bernard


i'll just buy the book if you recommend, this is the kind of "behind the scene" stats that i like.

like : why the hell didn't they produce FW190 and stop BF109, PZ IV and no elefant, tigers or big difficult to produce tanks, sublicence in Italy intead of having there obsolete M13/40 etc.

But we already had this debate in WIR.

Bye.

Bernard, I didnt say it was a great book. He skimps on the
Pacific Theater and focuses on 4 major battles. There are better books than Keegan. Or perhaps I should say, even Keegan has better books.

[IronDuke_slith]

===================
I still say the most "pivotal" event of the whole of the war in Europe from start to close was Hitler electing to discontinue thrashing the Royal Airforce's airfileds and the beginning of his petulant attacks on British cities.

The RAF didn't collapse, and Germany's illusions of Sealion were made categorically toast, and he was turned away to other matters. I myself think the entire war would have gone done a myriad number of very unique paths, if the RAF had been driven from the skies.
Complete mastery of the air will render even the great Royal Navy worthless. If you disagree I say the words Taranto, Crete, Malta, Pearl Harbour, Midway, Coral Sea, where airpower handed the navy its head on a platter.

No navy, no problem. Hitler without an RAF to consider could have sat back while Goering convinced the Royal Navy to retreat from Southern England.

I am not saying the Germans were prepared or even equipped to take out all of England, but British stubborness makes a lousy defense against bullets.
The British would have sued for peace the same way the Japanese were forced to accept defeat (and personally I think the Japanese were a great deal more fanatical than the British). [/B][/QUOTE]
===========================
I agree the errant bomber was a stroke of luck and saved the RAF when the fighting switched to the cities. However, I don't think Hitler was ever really interested in us in the UK. If we had made peace after the fall of France, he would have offered terms far more favourable to us than our military position at that time probably deserved. I doubt whether Hitler would ever have launched Sealion. Bearing in mind the Germans created dozens of new formations and fielded 3.5 million men in Barbarossa, battle of britain or no battle of britain, the Germans would surely have won at some stage. I just think they lacked the policitical will to fight us, turning their attention to the east since they considered us finished and Sealion a pointless risk. The Royal Navy would have suffered terribly, but nightime raids into the invasion areas by the home fleet, would have decimated the German landing and supply effort.

It's also been suggested that one (of several) of the reasons he struck east was to remove the last hope for the UK, who would have felt conflict between the USSR and Germany inevitable. Remove the Soviets and Britain would have had no potential allies left on the european mainland

Malta was pivotal for the mediterranean but no further, I'm not sure Rommel driving through the middle east into Southern Russia was ever really on.

This (very interesting) thread's main problem is cause and effect. A crucial late start in Russia is caused by problems in the Balkans, but are the Balkans pivotal, or is the pivot the Italian failure in Greece that made German intervention necessary?

Or, is the pivotal battle the breakthrough at Sedan? Surely the point Hitler became confident that his troops were capable of anything. Or the winter war when Hitler saw the Red Army humbled by the Finns and decided Russia would be easy meat?

However, I can't resist a suggeston, so I would go with those suggesting the Battle of Moscow. German strategic aims in each successive year of the war in the east narrowed. Year one: attack all along the front. year two: strike in the south. Year three: pinch out the salient at Kursk. I don't think the USSR would have survived the loss of Moscow. Since the Germans never threatened to take it after December 41, then that would be my pivotal battle. Having lost it, the German army was condemned to bleed to death on the Steppe.

Everything else was salt in the wound, although Overlord and the Bulge were pivotal battles in wetsern european history, because defeat in either for the allies would have seen a very different post war europe.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Excellent comments Iron Duke

[GYBLIN]

I concur.Its all in the timeline of events,If a then b or c.The greatest question of man,"what if?"

[Bernard]

Midway is then pivotal in your view.
batlle of britain too.

U-boats should be : imagine Doenitz has his opinions taken into account and Germany enters the war just 200+ transocenic subs instead of (67?) of which many onl coastal.

other pivotals (small) and what-ifs :
MED :
- maiale : italy puts out of action 2 BB in Alexandria and COULD have reveresd the tide (wich they didn't)
- tarente (like a midway : small raid : after no more italian navy (losses + loss of spirit)
- Toulon : the french are intelligent, Churchill doesn't attack them on Mers El Kebir and Fench Navy joins Royal Navy.

East :
- Stalingrad : Hoth makes it to Stalingrad and Hitler allows Von Paulus to join him. 6th army saved.
- Mussolini becomes intelligent and doesn't invade balkans.
- hitler attacks with all forces on Leningrad instead on making a siege. Leningrad falls.

West :
- lofotten and other raids : Hitler immobilizes ?? full divisions in Norway, Sweden, Denmark and makes an atlantic wall there.
- Hitler accepts spanish terms in 1940 and Spain joins the war
- Petain gets a stroke and the french continue fighting instead of collaborating

Germany
- Hitler lets his engineers work on Me262 and get a fighter 1 year earlier.

Pacific
- The british fortify Singapore from inland and train their troops.

Belgium : my grandfather joins his regiment on time and war is won in 1940.

etc.

[Chiteng]

I would argue that even Four UK destroyers in amongst
the invasion barges would have made the spanish debacle
look like they won. The hardest hearts shudder at the thought.