What *was* the decisive battle of World War 2?

[catsmate]

I'm on a bit of a history kick again, plus some alternate history, and this question occurred to me. What was the decisive, game changing, battle of the war?
Or was there one at all?

The usual suggestions are: Britain, Midway, Kursk, Stalingrad, Normandy and the Ardennes. But were any of them actually that decisive?

Britain.
Even if the RAF had been defeated would this have changed things that much? A landing in the UK was possible, but doomed, and might even have hastened the fall of the Nazi regime.

Midway.
Interesting, even fascinating battle, mainly due to it's utter improbability.
Fuchida and Okumiya called it 'the battle that doomed Japan', but did it? Even if the US fleet had been obliterated, the American industrial powerhouse was building up to grind Japan into dust. The United States will still have fleet equality by 1943 and completely overwhelm Japan by late '44. Japan might survive into 1946, assuming there are problems with B29 bases for the atomic offensive but the result was pretty much pre-ordained after the 'strike south' decision was taken.
In the broadest sense, Midway is irrelevant. Perhaps not to some alternate Australia, dealing with the legacy of invasion and occupation, but in the global picture......

Stalingrad.
The Germans had stretched their logistics so far that disaster was inevitable at some point.

The Ardennes and Kursk.
Too little and too late. Even overwhelming German victories would only have delayed things a few months; Germany would have been bludgeoned into submission by Allied capabilities.

Normandy.
Stopping the landings would have probably ended US/UK ground operations for a while. But in a little town in New Mexico work was continuing......
A different post-war Europe would have been probably, the Nuremberg bomb being the standard for explosive events perhaps.


OK, I'm rambling a bit, but the more I study WW2 (and I've been doing that since my teens, nearly thirty years now) that more I feel that all the strategic brilliance, tactical skill and bravery were meaningless. Economics, the dismal science, dictated what happened. The Axis simply didn't have the ability to support their grab for global power.


I'm going to contradict myself; I *do* think there were three somewhat realistic points where Germany might have avoided utter defeat, after Hitler took power in '33, any guesses what they are?

 

[lionking]

Germany would have held control over much of Europe for many, many years if it didn't attack Russia.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Battle of the Atlantic.

 

[billdun262]

Battle of the Atlantic.

After the war, Churchill said that the U-boats were the only thing that really terrfied him.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Operation Sea Lion?

 

[Damien Evans]

An odd nomination: The Battle of Milne Bay. Because, though it was a relatively minor campaign, it was the first where the Japanese were unequivocally defeated and had to completely withdraw from the region.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Milne_Bay

"We were helped, too, by a very cheering piece of news that now reached us, and of which, as a morale raiser, I made great use. Australian troops had, at Milne Bay in New Guinea, inflicted on the Japanese their first undoubted defeat on land. If the Australians, in conditions very like ours, had done it, so could we. Some of us may forget that of all the Allies it was the Australian soldiers who first broke the spell of the invincibility of the Japanese Army; those of us who were in Burma have cause to remember."

 

[angrysoba]

Maybe Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.

When that happened, and Germany declared war on the US it was game over for the Axis.

 

[lobosrul]

In Europe the most decisive battle IMO was the Battle of Kursk. It sort of "broke the back" of the German Army. After that, as Soviet victory was all but inevitable.

For the west versus Germany, probably the Second Battle of El Alamein.

It may almost be said, "Before Alamein we never had a victory. After Alamein we never had a defeat."

Churchill was pretty much right about that.

An odd nomination: The Battle of Milne Bay. Because, though it was a relatively minor campaign, it was the first where the Japanese were unequivocally defeated and had to completely withdraw from the region.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Milne_Bay

One could kinda argue that the Battle of the Coral Sea was a turning point in the Pacific War. It was only a tactical draw, but for the first time the IJN was held in check. Much more importantly though, the Japanese canceled their plans to capture Port Moresby by sea and instead tried an overland attack through the Kokoda track. Which of course, the Aussies successfully defended in a much larger campaign than Milne Bay.

 

[Didymus]

From the British perspective the decisive battle has always been El Alamein. It was the first Allied victory of the War and the first time that German armor had been turned back.
Without this victory, Britain would have lost the Suez Canal, ready access to India and dominance in the Mediterranean. Germany would have struck north from Egypt, taken the Caucusus oil fields and gained the fuel supplies the lack of which eventually cost it the War.

 

[lobosrul]

From the British perspective the decisive battle has always been El Alamein. It was the first Allied victory of the War and the first time that German armor had been turned back.
Without this victory, Britain would have lost the Suez Canal, ready access to India and dominance in the Mediterranean. Germany would have struck north from Egypt, taken the Caucusus oil fields and gained the fuel supplies the lack of which eventually cost it the War.

Its a long, long ardous journey through some very low infrastructure territory to go from Egypt past the easily defended Caucasion mountains. I know this from my time playing Hearts of Iron 3

 

[lobosrul]

I'm going to contradict myself; I *do* think there were three somewhat realistic points where Germany might have avoided utter defeat, after Hitler took power in '33, any guesses what they are?

By not attacking Poland? If Hitler just wanted some wars, he could have maybe taken Denmark, Switzerland and Yugoslavia. They weren't in the Allies like Poland was.

Staying allied with China instead of Japan? WTH would that have done to American-German relations, I'm not sure.

Not allying with Italy... with friends like these who need enemies?

 

[angrysoba]

By not attacking Poland? If Hitler just wanted some wars, he could have maybe taken Denmark, Switzerland and Yugoslavia. They weren't in the Allies like Poland war.

Staying allied with China instead of Japan? WTH would that have done to American-German relations, I'm not sure.

Not allying with Italy... with friends like these who need enemies?

I presume that declaring war on the US was itself a fatal mistake. Perhaps Hitler could have avoided that war.

 

[lobosrul]

I presume that declaring war on the US was itself a fatal mistake. Perhaps Hitler could have avoided that war.

Hitler declaring war on the US was quite possibly the dumbest decision of the war. But it was *probably* inevitable that the US would eventually declare on Germany at some point after Pearl Harbor. Even had we not, the British and Soviets probably win the war with American supplies.

Had Germany continued on with their support of China in the Second Sino-Japese War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-German_cooperation_(1911–1941), a war that the US also supported China in, would we have been quite as quick to come to Britain's aid or stay neutral (cash and carry, instead of lend-lease). I really don't know.

 

[Senex]

I presume that declaring war on the US was itself a fatal mistake. Perhaps Hitler could have avoided that war.

Now you're talking. Hitler already crushed the soft Europeans, could have starved the Britts and could have handled the commies in time if not for my family members showing up and kicking German and Japanese butt. You would think the world would be a little more grateful for our magnanimity but no all the evil today is the fault of the USA until the Chinese start flying warplanes near them and then we are cool again. You people are welcome for not having a dog-eared German and Japanese dictionary next to you.

 

[Craig B]

The indecision at Smolensk that delayed the attack on Moscow.

 

[Craig B]

Now you're talking. Hitler already crushed the soft Europeans, could have starved the Britts and could have handled the commies in time if not for my family members showing up and kicking German and Japanese butt. You would think the world would be a little more grateful for our magnanimity but no all the evil today is the fault of the USA until the Chinese start flying warplanes near them and then we are cool again. You people are welcome for not having a dog-eared German and Japanese dictionary next to you.

Thank you very much. And convey my thanks to your family too.

 

[geni]

Stalingrad. If that had gone the other way the Caucasus would in all likelyhood have fallen to germany taking much of the soviet union's oil with them.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I presume that declaring war on the US was itself a fatal mistake. Perhaps Hitler could have avoided that war.

I doubt that. The landings in Normandy happened by the time the German army was already in full retreat from Russia. Even Sicily happened after Stalingrad. The US would most likely have supported the Soviets with or without a declaration of war, and even without that support the sheer size of the Russian war machine would have still defeated Germany. However it did prevent the iron curtain from extending to the atlantic.

 

[crescent]

The indecision at Smolensk that delayed the attack on Moscow.

I tend to view the Battle of Moscow as perhaps the decisive battle. The Soviet defense reinforced Stalin's hold on power, preventing the collapse of the Soviet government.

So long as Stalin stayed in power and the government and military remained loyal to him, the Nazis had no hope of victory. They had nowhere near the manpower to completely overrun, occupy, and manage Russia, or even push far enough east to seriously impact Soviet industrial production; fear of Stalin's eventual victory limited Nazi efforts to build puppet armies in the German occupied parts of the Soviet Union.

The only hope for the Nazis would be something similar to a repeat of WWI (in the east, at least), with a quick collapse of the Soviet government, replaced by a government willing to negotiate an end to the war. When that didn't happen, the Nazis were doomed.

 

[Craig B]

I tend to view the Battle of Moscow as perhaps the decisive battle. The Soviet defense reinforced Stalin's hold on power, preventing the collapse of the Soviet government. <snip> The only hope for the Nazis would be something similar to a repeat of WWI (in the east, at least), with a quick collapse of the Soviet government, replaced by a government willing to negotiate an end to the war. When that didn't happen, the Nazis were doomed.

Yes I absolutely agree. What I meant about Smolensk was that post-battle indecision delayed the German offensive against Moscow until too late in the season. The battle of Moscow was the decisive engagement of the War, but its outcome had in a sense already been determined by the delay and diversion of the Nazi forces following the German victory at Smolensk. In my victory is my defeat, so to speak.