Cybermat47 Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 EUROPE: In my opinion, it was the Battle of the Atlantic. If Dönitz had started the war with the 300 submarines he needed, Britain could have been defeated before America joined the war. With Britain out of the way, Russia couldn't get the equipment and food that they needed, so either they would be defeated, or it would take longer for them to defeat Germany. ASIA/PACIFIC: Now, while the Battle of the Atlantic did take place in the Asian/Pacific area as well (look up the Monsun Gruppe), that didn't affect the Japanese or American war efforts that much. I'd say that the most important battle of the Asia/Pacific region was Guadalcanal. It cemented the USN's over over the IJN at Midway, and also cost the IJA a lot of men.
SYN_Mike77 Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 Stalingrad. The war was over when the circle closed. 1
Jason_Williams Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 I think the one battle that is most important from a momentum standpoint is the Battle of Britain. If England had been successfully invaded, taking Europe back would have been even harder and if the UK was knocked out, the Germans could have avoided the air war in the west and the strategic bombing campaign and sent more troops and materiel east. And in the Pacific it was Midway. If Midway had fallen they could have attacked Pearl Harbor again and again making any reinforcements and our movements in the South Pacific much harder. I also think that the American public may not have agreed to endure a million dead to win if England had been lost or Hawaii constantly bombed. The biggest consequence to come out of the war was the rise of Mao and the Chinese Communists. We should have done everything possible to prevent Mao from winning the Chinese Civil War. We were the only country with nukes and we could have stopped Mao. Imagine if China has not gone communist? No Korean War and no Vietnam War. At least waging these wars on the communist side would have been much more difficult. This is why history is so interesting. Woulda, coulda, shoulda and if we did do it differently what else would have happened? Would the world be worse off or better off? Jason
Finkeren Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 In Europe: A close contest between The Battle of Britain and The Battle of Moscow. The Germans failing to force a British capitulation left Germany with the multiple front war, that they couldn't hope to win in the long run. However, getting pushed back from Moscow in December 1941 effectively lost the war for the Axis. After that there could be no hope for victory, though only a few in the German High Command realised it at the time. In the Pacific it's pretty obvious: Pearl Harbour. The Japanese failed to deliver a knock out blow in the first strike, and that pretty much decided it. They had committed themselves fully in what is arguably the most ambitious strategic plan ever deviced (fighting a multitude of nations over the largest battlefield in history) There was no way the Japanese could have won, unless they succeeded in forcing the US out of the war immediately.
JtD Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 EUROPE: In my opinion, it was the Battle of the Atlantic. If Dönitz had started the war with the 300 submarines he needed, Britain could have been defeated before America joined the war. With Britain out of the way, Russia couldn't get the equipment and food that they needed, so either they would be defeated, or it would take longer for them to defeat Germany. ASIA/PACIFIC: Now, while the Battle of the Atlantic did take place in the Asian/Pacific area as well (look up the Monsun Gruppe), that didn't affect the Japanese or American war efforts that much. I'd say that the most important battle of the Asia/Pacific region was Guadalcanal. It cemented the USN's over over the IJN at Midway, and also cost the IJA a lot of men. I agree with both. The battle of the Atlantic was the only one that in a drawn out conflict might have made the difference between victory and defeat. In the Pacific it is not as simple, Midway being the more spectacular battle, and the US submarine campaign being strategically deciding, but since Guadalcanal was strategically important too, and cost the IJN way more then they could spare, I'd also go for Guadalcanal.
Fifi Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 Most important battle? All were very important! Most are well known as BOB, BOA, BOS, BOM etc, but all the unknown, the hidden shadow battles were imortant to win 1
Tycoon Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 I think the one battle that is most important from a momentum standpoint is the Battle of Britain. If England had been successfully invaded, taking Europe back would have been even harder and if the UK was knocked out, the Germans could have avoided the air war in the west and the strategic bombing campaign and sent more troops and materiel east. And in the Pacific it was Midway. If Midway has fallen they could have attacked Pearl Harbor again and again making any reinforcements and our movements in the South Pacific much harder. I also think that the American public may not have agreed to endure a million dead to win if England had been lost or Hawaii constantly bombed. The biggest consequence to come out of the war was the rise of Mao and the Chinese Communists. We should have done everything possible to prevent Mao from winning the Chinese Civil War. We were the only country with nukes and we could have stopped Mao. Imagine if China has not gone communist? No Korean War and no Vietnam War. At least waging these wars on the communist side would have been much more difficult. This is why history is so interesting. Woulda, coulda, shoulda and if we did do it differently what else would have happened? Would the world be worse off or better off? Jason Remember during the Korean War when MacArthur wanted to use the nukes on China and take out communism for good? He said that if they didn't take out communism then they would have to fight another war in southeast asia(vietnam?!). Like you said a lot of what-ifing.
Mastermariner Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 In Europe: Operation Barbarossa. The beginning of the end for the axis. In Asia: Pearl Harbour. The beginning of the end for Imperial Japan. Master
MarcoRossolini Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) Battle of Britain...? Well... if the Germans had gained total air superiority then maybe... though even so they totally lacked the means to do so. The Germans just lacked the technology for a cross channel (as did everyone else) landing like we see in D-Day. Imagine going to war in this... So really, I kind of question the significance of the Battle of Britain, if the Germans had gained air superiority (which they couldn't) then maybe they might have made it, but even then, the invasion barges were so pitiful that any invasion would have sank to the bottom of the channel. French peniches were the main form of transportation which simply weren't designed for sea conditions. I read somewhere that all the British would have needed was to sail one destroyer into the mix and everything would have sunk from the waves generated. Of course also the peniche crews would have had no interest at all in the invasion as well... The Western allies spent 2 years seriously planning D-day whilst the Germans had a few months before the seas got too bad. Now personally, I'd say one of the Eastern Front battles, I can't put my finger on which though. If the Soviet Union had fallen, then probably there'd still be a Nazi Germany (or Europe in general) today. Battle of the Atlantic...? Gnnn... Iirc once the allies reinstituted the convoy system that losses went down significantly Edited February 13, 2014 by MarcoRossolini
Finkeren Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 So really, I kind of question the significance of the Battle of Britain, if the Germans had gained air superiority (which they couldn't) then maybe they might have made it, but even then, the invasion barges were so pitiful that any invasion would have sank to the bottom of the channel. French peniches were the main form of transportation which simply weren't designed for sea conditions. I read somewhere that all the British would have needed was to sail one destroyer into the mix and everything would have sunk from the waves generated. Of course also the peniche crews would have had no interest at all in the invasion as well... The Western allies spent 2 years seriously planning D-day whilst the Germans had a few months before the seas got too bad. Interesting viewpoint, but I'm not entirely sure Sea Lion couldn't have succeeded (and if it couldn't, then there really was no decisive battle of the war. The whole thing was pretty much decided by the British and Soviet determination to stay in the war at all costs) The thing about sailing a cruiser into the invasion fleet to capsize the landing craft sounds like the kind of sweeping statements that usually don't stand up to scrutiny. I apologize beforehand if you have a legitimate scource for this, but it sounds odd to me. All things considered, it is a fact, that the British army in the UK was poorly equipped, untrained, demoralised, desperately lacking heavy equipment and without significant fortifications along the coast. A German invasion was by no Means guaranteed to succeed, but I don't necessarilly think it would have been doomed either, regardless if the Luftwaffe had air supremacy or not.
MiloMorai Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 The thing about sailing a cruiser into the invasion fleet to capsize the landing craft sounds like the kind of sweeping statements that usually don't stand up to scrutiny. I apologize beforehand if you have a legitimate scource for this, but it sounds odd to me. All things considered, it is a fact, that the British army in the UK was poorly equipped, untrained, demoralised, desperately lacking heavy equipment and without significant fortifications along the coast. A German invasion was by no Means guaranteed to succeed, but I don't necessarilly think it would have been doomed either, regardless if the Luftwaffe had air supremacy or not. He said destroyer and there was many of them. I think someone needs to do some more reading.
DD_Crash Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) I seem to remember a thread on the Ubizoo that lasted a long time. One guy said that the Germans lost because they didnt knock out the drop hammer that made the crankshafts for the Merlin in Sheffield. No Merlins, no Spits or Hurries. And a guy called Odin was very upset that the UK wasnt invaded because we deserved to loose Edited February 13, 2014 by DD_Crash
MiloMorai Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 I seem to remember a thread on the Ubizoo that lasted a long time. One guy said that the Germans lost because they didnt knock out the drop hammer that made the crankshafts for the Merlin in Sheffield. No Merlins, no Spits or Hurries. And a guy called Odin was very upset that the UK wasnt invaded because we deserved to loose An epic thread. Odiie even had pre WW1 German warships in the attack force.
Sternjaeger Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 the question is how do you measure the importance of it really... I would say that the Battle of Kursk was the final blow that put Germany on its knees, they managed to survive and recover from all the other ones they lost.. Following Kursk I'd say the whole Operation Overlord was the battle that would have made the whole difference in the development of the war. The Battle of Britain was surely the most important for Great Britain, but it didn't cause unsustainable damage to Germany. 1
Mastermariner Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) No Jason! The biggest outcome of the war was that the Japanese showed the dominions of imperialist nations in Europe and USA that their masters weren’t invincible. The British, French, Dutch as well as the US fought in WW2 to preserve the Imperialistic system after the war and the Japanese victory over the surprisingly weak imperialists’ forces showed the dominions that there was a way out of this. If by arms if needed! But it took decades of war for patriots to free themselves, and in most cases, after asking for help from USA, the only nation willing to provide help turned out to be the CCCP and in some cases China. Ho Chi Minh was primarily a patriot with a goal to free his country from Imperialists and only secondary a communist. It will take at least fifty years he said to make Vietnam communistic. Do you seriously want to go back to pre WWII ideas in the world? Indonesia, China, India, Pakistan, all of Africa, and Malaysia etc.? Your "idea" of nuking China I will leave uncommented so far. You started the discussion so.... Master Edited February 13, 2014 by Mastermariner 1
DD_bongodriver Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) The Battle of Britain was surely the most important for Great Britain, but it didn't cause unsustainable damage to Germany. Well it's almost irrelevant how important it was to Great Britain, a fight for survival defaults to being important for the defender, the facts remain that it was a turning point in the war. Edited February 13, 2014 by DD_bongodriver
Foobar Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 The battle of Poland surely was the most important battle of all. Without it there never would have been any WW2. Sorry. 1
DD_fruitbat Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 The battle of Poland surely was the most important battle of all. Without it there never would have been any WW2. Sorry. Invasion of Manchuria......
Sternjaeger Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) Well it's almost irrelevant how important it was to Great Britain, a fight for survival defaults to being important for the defender, the facts remain that it was a turning point in the war. I dunno, I still struggle to see it as a defeat. The Luftwaffe interrupted their operations because of Hitler's request to concentrate on Barbarossa (again, a case of impatience and lack of perseverance typical of the man), but they were still perfectly capable to carry on the operation if they wanted to. What was believed to be an aerial blitzkrieg had turned into an aerial war of attrition (one that the RAF was starting to lose too), but under a technical point of view it was by no means a defeat, and even if with hindsight we can consider it the first defeat of Nazi Germany, at the time it wasn't perceived as such (or better, it was celebrated as a victory in England for obvious morale and propaganda reasons), especially because the night raids rolled well into 1941 and then the V-weapons started pummelling England. So yes, the bottomline is that the RAF had been able to withstand the repeated blows of the Luftwaffe for as far as they'd been going on, but the truth is that England was at the brink of collapse, and not just in terms of production, but the fact that fewer and fewer pilots were combat ready. It's always important to remember that hindsight can distort our point of view when studying history. Edited February 13, 2014 by Sternjaeger
DD_bongodriver Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 It's always important to remember that hindsight can distort our point of view when studying history. You illustrate this point beautifully.
DD_fruitbat Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 So interesting hypotheticals... In the ETO, If the Battle of Britain had been lost and Sealion successful, and Britain sued for peace, as a premise, 300,000 troops garrisoned in Norway potentially freed up, No North Africa campaign sapping resources. Access to valuable oil in the middle east, a big problem solved. No round the clock bombing destroying infrastructure also freeing up much more of the Luftwaffe, no need to build the Atlantic wall, Very unlikely that the USA would declare war on Germany instead concentrating on Japan, again freeing up more resources for the eastern front. No need to pour resources into the battle of the Atlantic, Very likely no lendlease to the Russians..... Be interesting to imagine how the campaign against the Soviets would have panned out in those circumstances. 1
DD_Crash Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 So interesting hypotheticals... In the ETO, If the Battle of Britain had been lost and Sealion successful, and Britain sued for peace, as a premise, 300,000 troops garrisoned in Norway potentially freed up, No North Africa campaign sapping resources. Access to valuable oil in the middle east, a big problem solved. No round the clock bombing destroying infrastructure also freeing up much more of the Luftwaffe, no need to build the Atlantic wall, Very unlikely that the USA would declare war on Germany instead concentrating on Japan, again freeing up more resources for the eastern front. No need to pour resources into the battle of the Atlantic, Very likely no lendlease to the Russians..... Be interesting to imagine how the campaign against the Soviets would have panned out in those circumstances. Also the Italian Navy free to operate in the Black Sea and a full compliment of paratroops as Crete wouldnt of happened.
DD_fruitbat Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 they would have still failed with Barbarossa. The Russians already had a contingency plan in case Moscow would have fallen, and it still remains that policing such a vast continent would have been very very hard. It would have taken a joint effort from all the Axis countries to establish an effective territorial control, something that not even the Russians had in full. Who cares if Moscow fell or not, that is not really relevant at all, not sure why thats so important to you. It is impossible to say that without all the extra resources it might not have been enough to tip the balance in overwhelming the Red army as a cohesive force, which in '41 was a distinct possibility, it nearly happened anyway. I do suspect that the Soviets would of still been to much in the end myself, but the Germans would of been much more successful in '41 without the other constraints on them, and the war would surly of gone on for much longer, this leads to another hypothetical, A load of Heavy water wouldn't of ended up at the bottom of a Fjord in Norway.....
DD_bongodriver Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 they would have still failed with Barbarossa. The Russians already had a contingency plan in case Moscow would have fallen, and it still remains that policing such a vast continent would have been very very hard. It would have taken a joint effort from all the Axis countries to establish an effective territorial control, something that not even the Russians had in full. Land mass is irrelevant, if Germany had taken Moscow then Russians would be left fighting Bears and wolves in the woods and starving to death
DD_Crash Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 An epic thread. Odiie even had pre WW1 German warships in the attack force. I wonder if Bearcat has a link to that thread. It really should be in an internet museum
DD_fruitbat Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 I wonder if Bearcat has a link to that thread. It really should be in an internet museum I tried to sign in to ubi yesterday for the first time in an age to try to find something, they've changed the login stuff, so can't anymore, lol.
Bearcat Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 I wonder if Bearcat has a link to that thread. It really should be in an internet museum I tried to sign in to ubi yesterday for the first time in an age to try to find something, they've changed the login stuff, so can't anymore, lol. Perhaps you mean this thread? Ironic fruitbat...
Sternjaeger Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) Who cares if Moscow fell or not, that is not really relevant at all, not sure why thats so important to you. It is impossible to say that without all the extra resources it might not have been enough to tip the balance in overwhelming the Red army as a cohesive force, which in '41 was a distinct possibility, it nearly happened anyway. I do suspect that the Soviets would of still been to much in the end myself, but the Germans would of been much more successful in '41 without the other constraints on them, and the war would surly of gone on for much longer, this leads to another hypothetical, A load of Heavy water wouldn't of ended up at the bottom of a Fjord in Norway..... Seriously? Other than the symbolic meaning, which would have been a HUGE boost for the nazi propaganda on a worldwide scale, it would have meant securing a broad, straight frontline, drawing a new line that ran between Moscow and Stalingrad first of all. It would also meant a more secure access to the energetic reserves towards the north, ideally drawing a line from St. Petersburg (with the help of Finland) all the way down to the Caspian Sea. Once you reinforce that line, Russia will start dismembering, don't forget that it's made of such a varied reality of ethnicities, religions and cultural influences.. it was VERY ambitious, and they even almost managed to do it.. Edited February 13, 2014 by Sternjaeger
DD_fruitbat Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) Perhaps you mean this thread? Ironic fruitbat... 2005, time flies, lol. Actually I was looking for the pic with the shark with laser beams yesterday fo another thread Seriously? Other than the symbolic meaning, which would have been a HUGE boost for the nazi propaganda on a worldwide scale, it would have meant securing a broad, straight frontline, drawing a new line that ran between Moscow and Stalingrad first of all. It would also meant a more secure access to the energetic reserves towards the north, ideally drawing a line from St. Petersburg (with the help of Finland) all the way down to the Caspian Sea. Once you reinforce that line, Russia will start dismembering, don't forget that it's made of such a varied reality of ethnicities, religions and cultural influences.. it was VERY ambitious, and they even almost managed to do it.. Capturing Moscow was never going to be the end of the war, therefore other than being symbolic, not that relevant. Destroying the Red army as a cohesive fighting force, would of been much more relevant, as would be advancing to the Urals. Moscow is just on the way to that. Edited February 13, 2014 by fruitbat
Sternjaeger Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 you're missing the whole meaning of Barbarossa then.. you couldn't quite destroying an Army that was varying in numbers so rapidly, you had to cut the head of the bear, then it would have been the real panic. Don't forget that the whole of Russia looked at Moscow for reference, and if your main ideological and administrative point of reference falls in the hands of the Nazis, then it would have been true panic..
DD_fruitbat Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 You think that the government would of stayed in Moscow then? Curious. Stalin would of just moved back behind the Urals, and governed from there. 1
Bearcat Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 You think that the government would of stayed in Moscow then? Curious. Stalin would of just moved back behind the Urals, and governed from there. I agree.. I do not think that Germany would have defeated Russia.. not in the long run. Even if they had won the battles of Moscow and Stalingrad.. Eventually they would have been run out of Russia. 1
DD_bongodriver Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 I agree.. I do not think that Germany would have defeated Russia.. not in the long run. Even if they had won the battles of Moscow and Stalingrad.. Eventually they would have been run out of Russia. No, it would have been a war of insurgency, think Afghanistan, main difference being the Nazis worried less about human rights and would have been effective at wiping out the stragglers, IMO
Finkeren Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 You think that the government would of stayed in Moscow then? Curious. Stalin would of just moved back behind the Urals, and governed from there. I agree with you in that the loss of Moscow wouldn't have been the end of the war, but still it would have been a significant blow to the Soviet war effort, posibly even a crippling one. A government on the run functions much less effectively than one that can govern from an established center with fully functioning communication lines and infrastructure. 1
Bearcat Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 No, it would have been a war of insurgency, think Afghanistan, main difference being the Nazis worried less about human rights and would have been effective at wiping out the stragglers, IMO The Russians would not have gone gently into that goodnight.. Eventually Germany would have been run out..
DD_bongodriver Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 The Russians wouldn't have had much choice, if Germany took over all infrastructure then where would the Russians be getting supplies from, who would be building tanks etc? the Russians barely managed to defeat the Germans where they did, and did so relying very heavily on superior numbers of men and machines, this is of course from the perspective of Germany having secured the whole of Europe eliminating it's Western front, it could have concentrated everything to the east and have the whole of Europes resources for it's own production needs, they would have basically bulldozed the Russians into the Pacific.
DD_Crash Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 Oh the fun we have By the way BearCat, I enjoyed Fruitbat thread at the zoo but it wasnt the hilarious one that I remember.
DD_fruitbat Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 Oh the fun we have By the way BearCat, I enjoyed Fruitbat thread at the zoo but it wasnt the hilarious one that I remember. Just read through it myself for the first time in 9 years! Don't remember the ubizoo being that civil, ahh happy days.
Outlaw Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) The Luftwaffe fighters did not have the range to ever defeat the RAF. If worse came to worse the RAF would simply pull back beyond the range of the 109s and recover/regroup. If the Germans were ever stupid enough to actually try and cross the channel (and I don't think they would have ever tried it even if they had some level of air superiority) the RAF and RN would have arrived in force, suffered heavy losses, and stopped the one and only shot the Germans had at an invasion. IIRC, at the time of the BOB the Luftwaffe had not even been able to replace the losses of the previous battles such was the poor state of their industry. Hitler ignored the warnings of his industrial machine's leaders fully believing that the war would be over so fast it would not matter. The losses to the Wermacht were devestating from day one of Barbarossa. The only people optimistic about attacking Russia were Hitler and his fanatical followers. Even in the front lines it was well known early on that the Germans were being worn down much quicker than the Russians. It must have been demoralizing to realize that enemy position after position is manned at the same level while your forces are being worn down with every step. --Outlaw. Edited February 13, 2014 by Outlaw
DD_Arthur Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 EUROPE: In my opinion, it was the Battle of the Atlantic. If Dönitz had started the war with the 300 submarines he needed, Britain could have been defeated before America joined the war. With Britain out of the way, Russia couldn't get the equipment and food that they needed, so either they would be defeated, or it would take longer for them to defeat Germany. ASIA/PACIFIC: Now, while the Battle of the Atlantic did take place in the Asian/Pacific area as well (look up the Monsun Gruppe), that didn't affect the Japanese or American war efforts that much. I'd say that the most important battle of the Asia/Pacific region was Guadalcanal. It cemented the USN's over over the IJN at Midway, and also cost the IJA a lot of men. Hmmm...interesting. If you look at the war as a whole then the most important event in Europe was the Battle of Moscow in the winter of 1941. It was the high water mark of German effort. Everything that came after would be blunted by the losses the Wehrmacht sustained here. After it, despite many travails, the Russians could only continue to get stronger. The second most important battle in Europe; Battle of Britain without question. If the Wehrmacht had managed a successful invasion there would have been no western allied effort. In the Pacific it was Midway. Overnight, the strategic situation was tipped irrevocably in Americas favour. Second most important battle - and the most unknown - the US submarine campaign against Japanese shipping in 1944-45.
Recommended Posts