What was the most pivotal battle of WW2?

[Bernard]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
Better watch out Bernard, no one likes hearing the truth, I should know I am from Quebec:D

Tabarnak.
You can't be all that bad then. Spent 1 year studying at Laval University. Met only nice people. Truly.


:p

[IronDuke_slith]

Sarge, Bernard,

I agree. I'm a Brit and possibly (alright probably) biased, but once the Germans had broken the French at Sedan, a complete failure by the French high Command (to whom the British forces were subordinated) meant it was only a matter of time. Weygand and Gamelin were fighting the first world war again, and I'm sure I remember reading they were drawing halt lines on the map only to find the germans were fifty miles further on.

French armour if used properly, (and I seem to remember De Gaulle did at least try) could have made the Germans far more cautious. We did pull out at Dunkirk, but bearing in mind we were being cut off, and did attempt (at Arras) to test the German flanks, I'm not sure what other options we had.

Finally, as I've suggested earlier in this thread, if the BEF hadn't left at dunkirk, France would never have been liberated. The BEF would have been forced to surrender within days, and with out the 330 000 troops rescued from dunkirk, Britain wouldn't have fought on. France's liberation, if at all, would have come at the hands of Stalin. It wouldn't quite (I suspect) have been particularly liberating.

Also, at some point we have to credit Manstein and the plan he developed for the western front. It was an exellent plan, well conducted.

As for the Belgians, they did all they could. It is unfortunate for them, that whenever anyone in Europe decides to pick a fight, they often choose to do it in the low countries.

Regards,
IronDuke.

[Bernard]

Ironduke,
i've put you high on my "best liked buddies" list.

of course, BEF had no choice. Belgian had surrendered, french were in toal disarray on the right and separated by the Pz Korps.

Yes, De Gualle had counterattacked near Sedan (name of the locality escapes me - Abbeville !)

but to no real avail and with huge losses. Also no reserve to be sent for exploitation and lack of infantry in the "DCR" Armoured division.

best regards;

[hardcase]

The most decisive battle was the Battle of Pearl Harbor, sealed the Axis fates immediately. Churchill reported he slept soundly knowing that England would not loose the war. Yommamoto said he would run wild in the pacific for 6 months then loose the war.

hardcase

[Unknown_Enemy]

Posted by Bernard
the French blamed everyone for failure in may-june 1940

Well, the staff was blaming anyone for sure, because if they could not find some resposabilities their heads would have been on the level.

Posted by Bernard
What they don't say is

huu, please, could we update to "What they didn't say is " ?


Then, everybody should remember that by 1940, blitzkrieg was a new concept, neither understood in France, UK, Belgium or Holland. Neither France or UK had organised some mechanised units, all western europe was still looking for a WW1 type war.

Then, let's have a closer look :

- No spirit : agreed, most of french were not eager to die for the liberty of Poland. And worst, one of the more powerful political party at the time : the communist party, was strongly versus the war and despite being banned, covertly advocated peace since the beginning of war.
- No tactics : wrong. They was some very good tactics, which had been learned by all high ranking officers. For instance, when the breakthrought was detected in the Ardennes, the local staff asked to chop the trees to block the roads. The answer was a very strong NO, as the road were necessary for the cavalry to attack. Indeed, the french cavalry was send on these roads, just to come back routed with the panzers hot on their tails. Brillant isn't it ?
- no strategy : wrong the whole french strategy was to dig up in defense and let the enemy bleed dry on it. Which was a typical WW1 well learned lesson. Except that what was forgotten is that war are won by attacking, not only by defense.
- no leader : wrong. De Gaule, Leclerc, Giraud anyone ? The only problem is that they were regarded as strange fools when war should be run by serious people.
- no transmission : wrong again, transmissions were top of the line for a slow moving WW1 model. But nobody in the french (or UK) CC ever imagined they would have to deal with an enemy able to run 50 miles a day.

For a complete analysys of the france battle, I would recommand the reading of "History of WW2" by Liddel Heart.

Then for Montoire, it came by Petain as a Marechal, was adamant not to have the army more humiliated. Which forbid to have the government to continue the fight from the colonies. But that is another and long history.

[jnier]

"Biggest problem with "what if" threads I have noticed, is the Americans being unable to properly understand, that Pearl Harbour, and Normandy, were not the be all and end all of the war. Sure they were important, but it is a natural Americocentric stance to think the Western Allies folded spindled and mutilated the Germans."

Speaking as a biased, oppresive, Americocentric tool, I will still offer the opinion that American entry into the war was the single most decisive event in WWII - especially when you consider both the European and Pacific Theaters. Talking only about the Germans and the European Theater is, well, Eurocentric - Europe was only half the war.

You could make a case that Barbarrosa was the most important event in WW2, but this completely overlooks the Pacific Theater.
If your talking just about Europe, then maybe the Soviets take the Germans down by themselves, but this is not a certainty (as historians cannot seem to agree on this either). Also consider the radically different shape of European, and World, history if this was the case.

But since Pearl Harbor was the event that brought the US into the war that makes it single most pivotal battle in the war. It forever changed what would happen in both theaters of the war. Subsequent US individual actions (like Normandy, Bastonge, Guadalcanal) were important, but don't seem to really qualify as pivotal, since the weight of Allied numbers on both fronts made the eventual results of these campaigns a foregone conclusion.

Churchhill was right.

[Shrapnel]

One gloomy night a stray German bomber got lost over Britain. Finally giving up he jettisoned his bombs and headed back to Germany. What he didn't know was he was over London at the time.
In retaliation Britain launched a bomber raid over Berlin (I think it was Berlin).
Hitler was so furious that he ordered all bombing of airplane factories, airfields, pilot training facilities, etc to stop and switch over to the destruction of London.
The Raf was at the breaking point at this time and most likely would of ceased to exist if the Luftwaffe had continued to pressure the Raf with attacks many times a day.
With the switching of targets from the suppression of the Raf to London busting Hitler gave the Raf time to rebuild, rest and restock. The end result was the failure of "Eagle Day", the invasion of Britain by Mid-September if Germany had air superiority.
Had Germany gained air superiority and invaded Britain, a battle they almost certainly would of won (the "home force" was training w/ broom sticks at the time) the allies would of not had a spring board for the B-17s to go on it's strategic bombing missions nor would Normandy of happened.
Most likely the Allies only option was up the boot of Italy and Hitler could of massed many more troops there.
Would have Germany won the war? Probably not but they probably could of ended up w/ more territory and the allies agreeing to a cease fire (this is all speculation of course).
IMHO that one lone bomber back in the BOB lost the war for Germany when he jettisoned his bombs =)

[Chiteng]

The defeat of the Ottoman outside Vienna would be pivotal
but not WW2 =)

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Hey no fair I already said that Shrapnel:D

[Shrapnel]

Heh heh Sarge 9-1,

There was no way I was going to read all those posts. Not many poeple know about that one. =)

[CCB]

Nice avatar Les. Did you scan it from one of your SL counters or pick it up off the internet?

If you scanned it, can you scan and email me some of those counters?

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Look for a PM from me CCB

[maniacalmonkey]

So they lost.
Therefore : someone else's fault :
British : they bailed out
Belgian : they surrendered after 18 days (betrayal !)
Netherlands : they surrendered even faster.

OY!!

We fought for five days where the Nazi's had planned only one, and the lines held until Rotterdam was fire-bombed to "speed up" the attack. And where were the French when this tiny little country fought so valiantly against the most awesome war machine of its time (and right next door, mind you). Show me a Frenchman with the guts to say that the Netherlands "betrayed" them in WWII and I'll tell you where to collect his remains...

Now, back into calm mode

I've finally finished reading this thread - excellent work! Some very interesting speculations in here, especially that very detailed one about Japana maybe attacking Russia. Kudos!

Now that I'm pumping up my nationalism I think I'll go find some Dutch scenarios, hehe.

[Zoltar DEXTER]

The Battle of France is in my opinion the real turning point of WWII.

The French defeat made possible everything after: the Battle of Britain, Barbarossa,......

France and Britain combined outweighted Germany economically and militarly, and had vast ressources with their colonies.

The combined French and British forces exceeded the Wermacht.
http://www.sandiego.edu/~cshimp/strength1940.htm

The outcome, just before the real stuff begun in May 1940, was not so evident. The German victory is even more brillant that we usually understand it.
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/world_war_2/12052

but even the Germans themselves had difficulties in apprehending the Blitzkrieg
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/world_war_2/13140


I would like to had the following comments to what Bernard and Unknown_Ennemy said:

Originally posted by Unknown_Ennemy
- No spirit : agreed, most of french were not eager to die for the liberty of Poland. And worst, one of the more powerful political party at the time : the communist party, was strongly versus the war and despite being banned, covertly advocated peace since the beginning of war.
- no leader : wrong. De Gaule, Leclerc, Giraud anyone ? The only problem is that they were regarded as strange fools when war should be run by serious people.
[/B]

-No spirit ? Yes and no
French soldiers, when they were correctly led, put more than a fight against the Germans. (around 100,000 casualties in 1.5 month).
Concerning the betrayal of Petain, you have to understand the French context of the time.
This arrivist seized the opportunity of the "debacle" to make almost a coup (he was appointed after a stormy arrested the parlamentaries who wanted to leave Bordeaux for North Africa to reform a government over there).
The French people, stunned by the sudden defeat (they had been told for years that there would be no war, that they had the best armies,...), humiliated by the loss of half of the country to the ennemy, trusted Petain, and accepted his "vision" and was easily bought by "...no longer suffering, we have lost..."
Just after Petain's misleading declaration, De Gaulle tried, from London, to move the French Nation by saying the evidence: France could and had to continue fighting... But only a hanfull heard his call....


-No leader ? No
French generals were intelligent but:
1- French high rank officers came from the same mould: they graduatted from the same school (usually Polythecnics, very high level education but very theoretical, sometimes from St Cyr). They were very conservative (as Unknown_Ennemy puts it: too independent-of-though officers were seen as highly dangerous). L'Ecole de Guerre, compulsory mid-career formation to reach upper positions, was a model of conservatism.
Consequently, as righly stated by Bernard and Unknown_Ennemy, the entire French conception of warfare (from weapon design [no radios in tanks, ridiculous autonomy for the B1Bis,...] to strategy) were based on WWI principles. But the only army with other conceptions was the Heer.

Nevertheless, it clearly denotes that most of the the French generals were theorists and no pragmatists. (it is the usual problem of French elites)

2- Agressiveness was not a sought quality. Generals were not selected for their moral strength. Pusillanimity was therefore common at that level.

Originally posted by Bernard
Also note that the Resistance really begun with the communist, after 22.06.1941.

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.
Just after the war, the same communist bastards exaggerated their true involvement in the Resistance. Unfortunatly, it is now the accepted version.

[CCB]

Bon poteau! Merci mon ami!

[davewolf]

Originally posted by Zoltar DEXTER

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/world_war_2/12052

Interesting article. The connection between the "Sturmtruppen" tactics and the Blitzkrieg is mostly being overlooked.

BTW Rommel had his share of this connection.

Caporetto - October 24, 1917

In October 1917, the Italian front collapsed at Caporetto as a result of Germany's intervention behalf of Austro-Hungary..

The German commanders developed new tactics to deal with the vertiginous terrain and strong fortifications of the eastern Italian Alps. The infiltration and shock tactics would be used during the 1918 offensive in the west, and then combined with tanks in World War II and renamed the blitzkrieg.

Special, elite units called storm troops slipped forward behind a short artillery, barrage containing a high percentage of gas. They would overrun forward defenses while the enemy was still sheltering from the expected bombardment. Then, as resistance stiffened, they bypassed strong points to attack disorganized units and rear areas. To maximize shock effect, these units were provided with the heaviest and handiest fire power available: portable light machine guns (Lewis, Parabellum, lightened Maxim, or Madsen), extra grenades, and pistols replaced many of the rifles normally carried by German infantry. One German junior infantry officer was especially impressed by the tactics. He captured a small but critical Italian mountain top in the battle: Irwin Rommel).

http://battlefieldvacations.com/ITALY/piave.asp

In 1916, during the Battle of Caporetto in Italy, his mountain combat group breached the Italian fortification system and captured over nine thousand prisoners. In December 1917 Rommel received Germany's highest award for bravery, the Pour le mérite. His superior called him "a commander of genius whom his troops followed with blind trust anywhere."
Although not on the General Staff, in 1919 Captain Rommel was accepted into the Reichswehr, the small professional army allowed the Weimar Republic under the Versailles Treaty. A company commander in the 1920s, he became an instructor in tactics at the Dresden school for infantry officers in 1929, and from 1935 to 1938 was head of the War College in Potsdam. After Austria's absorption into the German Reich in 1938, Rommel, now a colonel, commanded the officer training school in Vienna's Neustadt.

http://www.forces70.freeserve.co.uk/Afr ... Rommel.htm

Just one example.

I have respect for Liddell Hart. But the Germans invented those tactics already in WWI.

Just a reference to the question "Who invented the Blitzkrieg tactics?"

[davewolf]

Originally posted by Zoltar DEXTER
but even the Germans themselves had difficulties in apprehending the Blitzkrieg
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/world_war_2/13140

Good article. But I wouldn't back its conclusion.

Blitzkrieg was then, no brilliantly thought out military development. It was a fortunate combination of armor and tactics that relied on highly skilled and motivated soldiers to achieve its impressive results. The German High Command failed to either support or develop this revolution in warfare. Their only contribution to its success being the limited ability to tolerate the rogue behavior of its practitioners as long as it proved successful.

The delopement of this revolution would have been the mechanization of all units. A task that the Germans surely would have loved to execute. There were plans for even more PzDiv and PzGrenDiv. But the war economy wasn't able to produce that much tanks/trucks/cars, not to mention the later gas shortage.

[cbclimber]

I think the Italian advance into Albania MUST be considered.

[AbsntMndedProf]

I would say the Battle of Britain. Had the Luftwaffe continued its raids on RAF airbases, instead of diverting thier attacks to London, Fighter Command would have been toast and Opperation Sealion would have put Britain, and D-Day out of the picture. Also Rommel probably would have gotten the one or two divisions he needed to take Egypt and the Suez Canal, the real strategic objective in the Middle East at the time. (Oil not being discovered there until after the war.)

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.)

[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.