Decisive battles of WW2

[liamenator]

I've been writing a paper on the Battle of Stalingrad recently and have been pouring over a lot of material that argues for/against certain battles as the "turning point" of the war... Which I think is inherently a bit of a flawed process when dealing with a war of such titanic scope.

But I know there are a lot of history buffs around here figured there would be some interesting discussion on the topic, so I was wondering what some of your thoughts were regarding turning points and/or the importance of major battles in the overall scheme of things.

Is the concensus Stalingrad?
Or does anyone have any differing views?

I just find it very interesting to see the different contexts in which different people view the war as a whole.

[icarus]

This came up previously on the off topic board. I argued that the Battle of Kursk was just as equally a turning point as Stalingrad. One halted the Nazi advancement (Stalingrad) and one started their retreat (Kursk), as I understand it.

[Rathji]

The instant Hitler started Operation Barbarosa, he signed his own death certificate. That's the real turning point of the war.

[ebolablue]

The first battle of Smolensk was the deciding battle. It was the first real "victory" the Soviets had in 1941, not a real victory, but they delayed the German drive towards Moscow by a few weeks, and halted the advance for the first time. These extra few weeks then ruined the Moscow campaign for the Wermacht, as they got bogged down in the autumn mud and then, of course, Stalin had time to counterattack and smash the offensive in the Battle of Moscow, with his fresh divisions from Siberia. It was all downhill from there...

Stalingrad was lost before the battle got to its peak. The original point of the operation was to capture the Caucausian oilfields, helping the German problem of lack of oil, and to cut off the Volga and starve out Moscow and European Russia. Hitler changed his plans in the 1942 offensive, concentrated on Stalingrad itself, and failed. Whether the 9th army was captured or not isn't a huge factor, the Germans suffered much bigger and much less heralded losses later on.

[TheyCallMeBruce]

It depends which front you are talking about.

If it was against the Nazis, I would say the Battle of Britain. Majority of the Battle of Britain was fought in air. The intent of the battle was to get the British to surrender by conduction Blitzkrieg attacks. Hitler's decision to invade Britain was incredibly costly, with both sides losing thousands bombers and fighters. I believe this really hampered the German war machine, losing a lot of its air superiority. If Britain had been invaded, the war would have taken a drastic turn.

In the pacific against the Japanese, I would say the Battle of the Midway was the turning point. If the Americans had lost majority of their carriers, the war would have been prolonged indefinitely.

[kermitology]

I'd argue that the importance of crushing the German 6th Army can't be understated. They never took the city and gave a lot of moral support (the opposite of the intent) to the Soviet's. While there are a lot of factors in play the fact that it was one of the first MAJOR defeats is in my mind enough to call it the decisive battle.

Antony Beevor's book Stalingrad is a fantastic account of the battle.

[CaptainCrunch]

Thats tough, Stalingrad was a huge turning point, but it was the exclamation point of a failed campaign more then a turning point as well.

The battle of Britain would be a big turning point as well, as it turned back the aggression of the German's on the British and allowed the brits to take a breath and gain the initiative against the German's. It also opened the sky's for the mass bombing campaigns.

Operation market garden was designed to allow the allies to cross the rhine which was the last barrier for the Allies heading into Germany. It failed and the allies weren't able to cross the Rhine until 1945.

Iwo Jima was hugely important because it removed the last natural defense protecting Japan from the Allies. It was also one of the most fierce fighting in the war.


Hope this helps




The Canadian invasion of Dieppe was a horrible battle, but key in that it could be considered a test run for the D-Day invasions, and allowed the allies to test the concepts of beach invasions

Pearl Harbour is a given, but the battle of midway was a major turning point because it basically ended the concept of Japan's dominance of the Pacific and crippled thier Navy.

Kursk was a major tank battle where the German's hinged thier hopes and the majority of thier main battle tanks in the hopes of breaking the Russian counter offensive, this was the point that the T-34 was recognized as the best tank on the planet, and Russian tank production started outstripping German tank production.

The battle of the bulge was the last major German offensive and the last hope for the German army, important in the same way that the battle of midway was in the pacific in that it pretty much ended the German hopes for a positive end for the war.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by kermitology

I'd argue that the importance of crushing the German 6th Army can't be understated. They never took the city and gave a lot of moral support (the opposite of the intent) to the Soviet's. While there are a lot of factors in play the fact that it was one of the first MAJOR defeats is in my mind enough to call it the decisive battle.

Antony Beevor's book Stalingrad is a fantastic account of the battle.

You know doing this, I was thinking that one of the major blunders by the German's was in the evacuation of Dunkirk which was a huge defeat for the Allies except for one thing, because they didn't have sufficient naval power they allowed 300,000 British and French troops to survive to fight another day. I think thats a significant tipping point, and a major defeat at the same time.

Fantastic book by the way.

[TheyCallMeBruce]

Good stuff CaptainCrunch! Good point on Dunkirk by the way.

I should also note that the Battle of Britain marks the first time the Nazis were defeated in a major campaign. This strengthened Britains resolve because now the Nazis were no longer viewed as this unstoppable machine. It also renewed the Americans belief that the war had hope, and that the Britain did not fall.

I find WW2 stuff facinating. Can you imagine what would have happened if the allies had lost? We would all be eating sushi, watching anime, and driving german cars...

...wait

[mykalberta]

I dont really think it was a battle more than the fact that the Russians were able to hold off long enough for winter to kick in.

The death blow for the Axis came when they couldnt take care of England giving the US a useable beachead to launch the counter offensive.

MYK

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

The death blow for the Axis came when they couldnt take care of England giving the US a useable beachead to launch the counter offensive.

MYK

Had they not had weaker divisions, and had Hitler not killed Rommel the Normandy landings might not have been as successful.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by TheyCallMeBruce

I find WW2 stuff facinating. Can you imagine what would have happened if the allies had lost? We would all be eating sushi, watching anime, and driving german cars...

...wait

Read the book The Man in the High Castle by Philip K. Dick

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by TheyCallMeBruce

Good stuff CaptainCrunch! Good point on Dunkirk by the way.

I should also note that the Battle of Britain marks the first time the Nazis were defeated in a major campaign. This strengthened Britains resolve because now the Nazis were no longer viewed as this unstoppable machine. It also renewed the Americans belief that the war had hope, and that the Britain did not fall.

I find WW2 stuff facinating. Can you imagine what would have happened if the allies had lost? We would all be eating sushi, watching anime, and driving german cars...

...wait

I agree on the battle of Britain, with the exception that Hitler changed the operational concept from taking out aircraft and weapons construction, to straight terror bombing of civillian targets. this allowed the Brits to rebuild thier air capabability and successfully deploy thier radar barrier.

The battle of Britain shattered the German Airforce which would have been better served in Russia.

I doubt that North America itself would have changed all of that much since it would have been next to impossible for the German's and Japanese to invade successfully. However if the German's had managed to hold onto the Oil fields in Arabia, the economies of Canada and the U.S would be much poorer since both countries would have been forced into isolationism. There might not have been the stigma on the Nazi's because the death camps might not have been discovered as well.

The cold war would have been far more intense as the German wall would have enclosed all of Europe including England.

[TheyCallMeBruce]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I agree on the battle of Britain, with the exception that Hitler changed the operational concept from taking out aircraft and weapons construction, to straight terror bombing of civillian targets. this allowed the Brits to rebuild thier air capabability and successfully deploy thier radar barrier.

The battle of Britain shattered the German Airforce which would have been better served in Russia

That's correct. One of the major mistakes Hitler made. Also, I believe Goring had ordered the stuka divers and the bf 110 to scale back the attack because they were losing great numbers due to vulnerability, but Hitler had insisted that they proceed with their missions, causing massive losses.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Had they not had weaker divisions, and had Hitler not killed Rommel the Normandy landings might not have been as successful.

The German's also had a piss poor fire plan in place which couldn't effectively hit the allies with massed firepower. they had a lot of small stuff.

They also had no naval barrier between the beaches and Britain which would have allowed the German's to effectively thin out the invading forces.

The invasion was far easier then it could have been.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by TheyCallMeBruce

That's correct. One of the major mistakes Hitler made. Also, I believe Goring had ordered the stuka divers and the bf 110 to scale back the attack because they were losing great numbers due to vulnerability, but Hitler had insisted that they proceed with their missions, causing massive losses.

At that point there weren't alot of Stukas left, they were a great plane, but incredibly vulnerable to the superior Spitfires, the Bf 110 was an example of a good concept gone wrong as they couldn't get enough of the original motors so they built them with smaller twin engines which ment that the bomb loads that they carried were much smaller, they were slow, had a terrible climb rate, and couldn't take a lot of damage in comparison to the British heavy Lancasters, and the American B-17's.

[liamenator]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The German's also had a piss poor fire plan in place which couldn't effectively hit the allies with massed firepower. they had a lot of small stuff.

They also had no naval barrier between the beaches and Britain which would have allowed the German's to effectively thin out the invading forces.

The invasion was far easier then it could have been.

Credit UK intelligence for creating some serious confusion for Hitler... He thought well into the autumn of 1944 that Normandy was just the first, smaller invasion and expected another to come at Pas-de-Calais, stationing seven offensive units in the area for over a week after D-Day... The largest deception in history.

Anyway.. The thing for me about Stalingrad is that the Germans after Smolensk or Moscow were able to rebuild and continue to push forward... Stalingrad completely sapped the German army's ability to resupply itself and the point after which is was left scrambling. Not to mention, the re-distribution of forces Stalingrad forced was able to stabilize the Moscow area and give a huse morale boost to the Allies when they needed it most (building on the earlier successes of the Battle of Britain). It proved to the British and Americans that the Soviets could hold out and stay in the war before a 2nd front was opened up.... But at the same time actually forced the Allies into action a little bit by forcing them to consider that the Soviets would probably not continue to pay such a high cost and that a seperate peace with Germany was a possibility.

[Jayems]

When I worked at the hospital, I met a real life Nazi soldier. He was older, but more than willing to discuss his experiences with me. I had a seat, and had a nice little chat since I'm a war buff.

He was telling me about how he was captured. He was in the battle of Stalingrad, and said he was up in this building with his fellow soldiers, when a wall of Russians came and basically killed everything in sight. He was shot five times, and promptly pulled up his shirt and showed me the scars.

He was soon taken to a camp where he said the Russians would take 10 of them every morning at random and execute them. Somehow, he was one of only about 300 who survived the camp.

I wish I remembered the camp he stayed at and more of the story, but it was a really interesting hour long conversation.

[Coolsurfer79]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Had they not had weaker divisions, and had Hitler not killed Rommel the Normandy landings might not have been as successful.

Rommel was alive during D-Day. He was absent due to his wifes birthday.

[SaskaBushFire]

Without a doubt in my mind it is Stalingrad. The Russians were pushed back to the very edge of the city, at one point it was 90% German and 10% Russian controlled. If they fell back beyond the Volga the war was over for the Soviets .. and who knows what else. It all came down to Order No. 227 "There is no land east of the Volga!". That was what they were told, so that is what they believed, welcome to Soviet Russia. The Russians fought tooth and nail in the most vicious tooth and nail fighting the war would see. Manstein was stalled along with the 6th Army, and then the Soviets pushed back. Part of the success was Chuikov always maintaining a constant front line of troops. He made sure that his soldiers hugged the Germans as close as they could during the fighting. This helped to nullify air and artillery advantages the Germans held over the Soviets. It evened the playing field a bit.

Operation Uranus - Georgii Zhukov. This was a direct result of Stalingrad, the ability to push back and encircle the 6th army, effectively destroying it. Hitler denied Paulas' request for a retreat. They are left to starve and eat horse over the winter and the Soviets make their last push in Jan. ending the myth that the Germans were untouchable.

This also coincided with a British victory over Rommel in Africa at the battle of El Alamein, not quite the size of Stalingrad (considering the Brits out numbered them drastically in both men, tanks and fuel) but it was still a major victory for the morale of the troops. For the first time in the war the Germans were not advancing on any front.

Also in the same year Midway took place in the Pacific, incredibly huge victory for the Americans. These to me are the three major turning points of the war, every front sees a momentum shift.


I think Stalingrad is an excellent topic, I wrote a paper on Leningrad and Stalingrad last year, I greatly enjoyed the research.