What was the most pivotal battle of WW2?

[Brigz]

Originally posted by AbsntMndedProf
Also, the loss of the Battle of Britain led to the invasion of the U.S.S.R., which ultimately cost the Axis the war. (I've read in various sources that Germany threw upwards of 2/3 of their miliary might against the Soviet Union.)

Eric Maietta (Throwing my two cents in.)

Have to dissagree with the first part of this. The loss of the Battle of Britain did not lead to the invasion of the USSR. Hitler had eyes on the Soviet Union back when he wrote Mein Kampf, long before he came to power. The main purpose of the Battle of Britain was to invade and knock England out of the war so he could more securely invade the Soviet Union. Hitler actually admired the British people and hoped, by overthrowing the British government, that England would become an ally in his war against the Bolshiviks. Obviously a big pipe-dream on Hitler's part. But with England in or out of the war, Hitler always intended to invade the USSR and he did even after losing the Battle of Britain.

I certainly agree with the second part. The invasion of the Soviet Union was the main factor for the demise of the Third Reich in a matter of years instead of decades. Hitler totally miscalculated the nature of Stalin and the Soviet population.

[Ironfist]

I think if Germany had finished off the RAF instead of bombing their citys they may have been able to take Great Britian out of the war. The second worst mistake was stopping the advance on Moscow. If Germany had takeing the city along with Stalin himself instead of turning south like they did. I think the Hard core Russians would have surrender soon since noone would be able to take Command without a major power struggle.

[Raverdave]

Originally posted by Chiteng
I must disagree. Dowding always had the option of simply pulling his squadrons back, north of london. It was never as desperate
as is portrayed. There is no drama in a battle of attrition,
so people try to create it by exagerating.

Totally agree with you...........the "desparate battle" was a beatup for propagander (S?).

[Drongo]

Posted by Chiteng

I must disagree. Dowding always had the option of simply pulling his squadrons back, north of london. It was never as desperate as is portrayed. There is no drama in a battle of attrition, so people try to create it by exagerating.

A bit blunt, but I'd have to agree. John Terraine said pretty much the same in "The Right of the Line" (RAF WWII history pub 1998).
Same from the recent BBC1 doco series "War and Conflict" by Dr Chris Bellamy

The German invasion plans were amateurish for they regarded the Channel as little more than a wide river crossing. For even if the Germans had achieved their aim of destroying the RAF, they might still have failed to establish a foothold because the British Royal Navy was so strong. Suppression of the enemy air force would have been the first difficult step to a German victory, but it was not the only factor. There was nothing to stop the British from withdrawing their aircraft northwards, out of range of the German fighters if they started to lose the air battle, keeping the aircraft in reserve to counter an attempted German invasion.

[kdevere]

my thought is either battle of the buldge orthe battle for berlin you know germany could of one there armys were the strongest at the beginning of ww2 and if hitler didnt attack russia then germany could have won the war

[wpurdom]

"I certainly agree with the second part. The invasion of the Soviet Union was the main factor for the demise of the Third Reich in a matter of years instead of decades. Hitler totally miscalculated the nature of Stalin and the Soviet population."

Hitler's miscalculation was in not even attempting to win over the Soviet population. He made it altogether too obvious that the best they could expect out of German victory was enslavement and he didn't think it worthwhile to even disguise this aim. There were a lot of signs in 1941 that great portions of the Soviet population were open to collaboration with an anti-Soviet effort before the reality of the German occupation hit home. Probably the worst mistake Hitler made in the entire war was to send in the SS squads instead of setting up a collaborationist regime and attempting to convince the Soviet population that he was engaged in a war of liberation.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

kdevere omits to realise a very distinct reality.

The time period was about several governments and ideologies clashing. While Hitler might have waited, there is zero doubt that Stalin had his own plans.

Every day week month the Germans hesitated in confronting the Soviet war machine, was just another day the Soviet war machine became stronger.

Hitler's actions in the West, were merely results brought on by his desire to indulge ambitions to the East.

Hitler had never had any desire to squash France or Britain (or any of the other Western Nations. But he had long desired "living space" in the East.

His "living space" though, caused him to go to war, when he pushed that last push, and went over the brink.

Stalin, in his own little world, had ambitions of World Communism. It's anyone's guess when he would have done some pushing, but he had every intention of pursuing his "ambitions" as well.

But being at war with Germany made him an "ally". Although only the most idiotic would ever have seen the Russian military machine, as a friend.

This was adequately proved from 1946 until the final collapse of the Soviet Union.

Today, Russia is still Russia, but they are free of the Communist way (sort of:) ).
Things change eventually. The Americans were once at war with England afer all eh.

[Bernard]

intersting thread, war in the east inevtable due to communism expansion.

in the same optic : Yalta.

a battle of words between the 3 great leaders (sorry about the french or chinese, not invited).

lost by Roosevelt (he said at som time that if the west gave Uncle Joe all he wanted, Russia would feel compelled to cooperate.
he priviledged personal relationships.
R and Churchill kind of abandoned Poland to their communist fate.
pivotal... really.
battmle also, with a lot of casualties...

[david1003]

for what its worth, here is my shot,
in my opinion, Kursk, after that the German panzers were defeated and Germany had to defend way back to Berlin.
Strategicly I think it was a mistake to start a two front war, they should have tried to invade GB , in 40 or 41 at last.

Greetings

David

[wpurdom]

I see the great Yalta myth rears its ugly head again. Precisely what did FDR "give away" at Yalta that the Russian army had not or was not going to secure anyway? Vienna was falling to the Red Army at about that time, Warsaw, Budapest, Slovakia, and the Balkans were already under Red Army control. Churchill, who had no delusions about Stalin recognized that Soviet domination of Eastern Europe was inevitable. Neutralization of Austria was not something Stalin needed to have accepted. Meanwhile on the West Front, Allied forces were a month away from Crossing the Rhine and were not entirely sanguine about how rapidly they could proceed into Germany.
The only room for maneuver would have after FDR's death if Patton had been unleashed to take Prague, we could have had a free Czech Republic fifty year's earlier. Everything else was already set in stone in geopolitical terms and the U.S. at all levels very badly wanted the Russians to share the casualties of invading Japan. But even if we did not ask the Russians to come in, they doubtless would have attacked the Japanese on their own in Manchuria and Korea.
Yalta was neither a battle nor a defeat for any of the participants.

[Adnan Meshuggi]

Originally posted by david1003
for what its worth, here is my shot,
in my opinion, Kursk, after that the German panzers were defeated and Germany had to defend way back to Berlin.
Strategicly I think it was a mistake to start a two front war, they should have tried to invade GB , in 40 or 41 at last.

Greetings

David

Well, at kursk, the german panzers weren´t defeated, only AFTER the battle, in the withdrawbattles, the german lost many damaged tanks, they normally could repair, so kursk hasn´t that importance to the german tank troop.... but it is a keypoint, because the german army never launched an invasion

[Drongo]

Posted by Adnan Meshuggi

Well, at kursk, the german panzers weren´t defeated, only AFTER the battle

I assume you're refering to Manstein's force in the South.

Depends what you mean by defeated. The panzers were never forced to give ground (until ordered) in their efforts to take Kursk from the South but they were bled white from 8 days of smashing their way through prepared defences and engaging reserves.

After Prokhorovka, they had little offensive power left and had not gained a sufficiently wide base to continue the drive (with what they had left) nor had they destroyed all the Soviet Tank forces between them and Kursk. Despite most of their losses being repairable, the fact was they were still losses that reduced their offensive power and that occured from the battle. Since they were never going to be in a position to stop, rest and repair during their drive for Kursk (even without the major Soviet offensive occuring), I'd call it a defeat with heavy losses.

If you're the attacker and you run out of steam before reaching your objective and are left in a small salient that you cannot hope to hold, by default it would be considered a defeat (regardless of how well you performed under the circumstances).

[Unknown_Enemy]

From Zoltar DEXTER
No spirit ? Yes and no

By no spirit, I mean the absolute confidence in defence over any attack strategy. Dare to imagine the consequence if France/allied would have attacked the Ruhr during the Poland invasion ? But that is only a dream, as the french military needed about 9 weeks to mobilize the army. The UK needed even longer to arrive. When both the french & UK were ready, poland did not exist anymore. Here again, typical lack of preparation, and WW1 army. Send the professionnal core of the army in the Ruhr while it was empty was a fool's idea. /sarcasm on/ How could they leave france undefended ??? /sarcasm off/

From Zoltar DEXTER
Uncorrect. The Resistance started right after the armistice, led by catholics and people who did not accept the situation. Of course, when the communist bastards (Maurice THOREZ, their leader, was obliged to flee to the USSR in 1939 when he said that French communists had to oppose the French war effort against Germany) joigned them, the Resistance became stronger.

Yes, the some resistance started right after the armistice. But at the time, it was almost not noticed. The real resistance, the one who was really useful, not on a military side, but on the intelligence side started in 1941. The communist party was already a secret organisation, hiding since the beginning of the war. They did not had to organise hidden group, which proved so difficult to set up. They were already there, had an efficient central command and countless suporters. Most of the "Gaullist" resistance group went really online end of 42/beginning of 43. So I have to disagree here, we can like it or not, but a majority of resistance in france has been the fact of communists.