What was WW2 most important battle ?

[char]

Lots of choice, but for me its Stalingrad.

The battle of Stalingrad smashed the German Army, and set Germany on the path to defeat.

The loss of men and material and the blow to morale of soldier and civilian can not be overstated, most German gernerals started to plot against Hitler after the battle and Russia saw it could defeat Germany in a prolonged battle of attrition.

Anyone agree or disagree?

[Frederich Barbarossa]

For me its the evacuation at Dunkerque. Stalingrad is over rated. Dunkerque was one of the first major battles of the war, but one that could have easily determined the war, unlike Stalingrad. Germany had opportunities to mount counter attacks even after Stalingrad, as known in Kursk. So Kursk is also important.

[Lysimachus]

Demyansk? General von Seydlitz-Kurzbach held out for about 72 days and then fought his way out (his troops were supplied by the air) and from this Hitler gathered the conclusion that whenever an army was encircled it could be supplied by the Luftwaffe and of course a year later Stalingrad happened.

Also, Kursk wasn't winnable.

[Belisaire_]

battle of France, the war would have been pretty different if France hadn't lost.
battle of Moscow, for the first time, the Blitzkrieg failed.
attack of pearl habour, US intervention in the war changed many things.
battle of Midway, turning point in pacific war.
battle of Stalingrad, turning point of the war in eastern front.
battle of Koursk, german lost their last chance to win the war, now the soviets will have the initiative until the german defeat.
battle of Leyte, destruction of Japanese navy.

For me its the evacuation at Dunkerque. Stalingrad is over rated. Dunkerque was one of the first major battles of the war, but one that could have easily determined the war, unlike Stalingrad. Germany had opportunities to mount counter attacks even after Stalingrad, as known in Kursk. So Kursk is also important.

Why do you think Dunkerque was so important ?

[Visna]

Why do you think Dunkerque was so important ?

Directed at someone else, but I don't care, I think it was important too.

Because saving almost the entire British Expeditionary Force (and a good chunk of French as well) instilled a will to fight in the British. Had the entire force been lost, I can't see where that will should have come from. Not to mention that the ones who were rescued would soon be put to good use elsewhere.
Churchill said something about how wars are not won by evacuations. But what could initially look like a victory for the Germans, turned out to be anything but.

[Chukada1]

Battle of the Atlantic.

I win.

[Belisaire_]

Directed at someone else, but I don't care, I think it was important too.

Because saving almost the entire British Expeditionary Force (and a good chunk of French as well) instilled a will to fight in the British. Had the entire force been lost, I can't see where that will should have come from. Not to mention that the ones who were rescued would soon be put to good use elsewhere.
Churchill said something about how wars are not won by evacuations. But what could initially look like a victory for the Germans, turned out to be anything but.

Even if the BEF had been captured, Britain could stayed at war without army for a moment, the island was protected by RAF and obviously its navy, the strongest in the world.

[Visna]

Even if the BEF had been captured, Britain could stayed at war without army for a moment, the island was protected by RAF and obviously its navy, the strongest in the world.

Britain was a democracy and as such extremely dependant on the whim of the people. A loss as catastrophic as that, combined with the many other German victories, would have some pretty serious impact on the will to fight.

[Lord Claremorris]

Directed at someone else, but I don't care, I think it was important too.

Because saving almost the entire British Expeditionary Force (and a good chunk of French as well) instilled a will to fight in the British. Had the entire force been lost, I can't see where that will should have come from. Not to mention that the ones who were rescued would soon be put to good use elsewhere.
Churchill said something about how wars are not won by evacuations. But what could initially look like a victory for the Germans, turned out to be anything but.

I disagree. The numbers of soldiers that would have been lost were not particularly large, some 300,000 French and British. These losses could have been made good. Furthermore even if they could not, it would have made no difference as the United Kingdom had no intention of surrendering, and its defense rested first and foremost on the Navy, and the RAF, neither of which were defeated, or would have been affected in the least had the evacuation at Dunkerque not occurred. So in essence, the British Isles would still be beyond Germany's power to subdue, and the British Empire would not have submitted without the Isles being subjected to German invasion.

[Mcgruder]

I disagree. The numbers of soldiers that would have been lost were not particularly large, some 300,000 French and British. These losses could have been made good. Furthermore even if they could not, it would have made no difference as the United Kingdom had no intention of surrendering, and its defense rested first and foremost on the Navy, and the RAF, neither of which were defeated, or would have been affected in the least had the evacuation at Dunkerque not occurred. So in essence, the British Isles would still be beyond Germany's power to subdue, and the British Empire would not have submitted without the Isles being subjected to German invasion.

That 300,000 was almost the entire British Army. A small but professional force. As it turned out, trying to rebuild the army after Dunkirk and make good the equipment loses was a huge feat in itself.

If we had lost all of those 300,000 men, then training a hole new army from the bottom up would have been an enormous task, Perhaps too much. The Morale of the nation would have been on the floor.

As for the Germans, they would have peace of mind knowing that regardless of the casulties they would sustain on crossing the channel, there would not be an army to oppose their landing on the English side.
History could have been much different.

[RomanSoldier9001]

Altougth I find this sort of question very vague and realy hard to point out a asnwer I would say in Europe Kursk because was in this battle not Stalingrad not Moscow were the Germans trully lost the tide of the war. In Pacific/East would be more harder to asnwer but I know that Midway speed up the war effort at least one or two years earlier.

Not unless the entire Red Army would have been encircled afterwards (somehow), and someone killing Stalin in the immediate aftermath of the battle. Even in this unlikely event the Nazi's would not win WWII as they would most certainly be drained of resources just when the Western Allies where ready to go into France, already being in Italy. The only difference would be that the war would drag on for several more years, untill the US would drop nuclear weapons on Berlin. There would be no Cold War though - which would have been nice.

Yes because Germans didnt had a Nuclear Plan of their own! If the Red Army wasnt knocking on door of Germany the Germans probaly would developed a Nuclear Device in 1945 aswell they did developed one and tested twice or more but was a smal nuclar device comapre to the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki if they didnt had Red Army in doorsteps of Germany I only imaged what they would developed probaly something close the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki!

[Hakkapeliitta]

Yes because Germans didnt had a Nuclear Plan of their own! If the Red Army wasnt knocking on door of Germany the Germans probaly would developed a Nuclear Device in 1945 aswell they did developed one and tested twice or more but was a smal nuclar device comapre to the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki if they didnt had Red Army in doorsteps of Germany I only imaged what they would developed probaly something close the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki!

Germany was never anywhere near to getting a nuclear weapon, they just didn't have the resources. Also they were on the wrong track - the best they could have managed was a crude 'dirty bomb' which isn't much more useful than a conventional bomb.

[Holger Danske]

Yes because Germans didnt had a Nuclear Plan of their own! If the Red Army wasnt knocking on door of Germany the Germans probaly would developed a Nuclear Device in 1945 aswell they did developed one and tested twice or more but was a smal nuclar device comapre to the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki if they didnt had Red Army in doorsteps of Germany I only imaged what they would developed probaly something close the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki!

The German nuclear program was far behind the allies, and their production of enriched plutonium was very small, and more importantly the Germans did not have an effective delivery system. Even if they developed a strategic bomber they would face a serious problem in regaining air-superiority over Europe. The US just out-produced the Germans in every way, and with Nuclear weapons the Allies wouldn't need to invade the Fatherland to win the war. Just drop a few nukes on selected German cities and watch the Germans kill Hitler after he refuses to stop.

@Saxdude

Okinawa wasn't important for the war, not enough to be the most important. The Japanese were permanently defeated long before, at Midway where they lost their carrier fleet. So in that respect Midway was the most important battle of the Pacific war, since the victor would dominate the ocean.

NOTE: In the Battle of Berlin the Soviet losses were more than 800,000 casualties while the Germans suffered 360,000.

[Frederich Barbarossa]

battle of France, the war would have been pretty different if France hadn't lost.
battle of Moscow, for the first time, the Blitzkrieg failed.
attack of pearl habour, US intervention in the war changed many things.
battle of Midway, turning point in pacific war.
battle of Stalingrad, turning point of the war in eastern front.
battle of Koursk, german lost their last chance to win the war, now the soviets will have the initiative until the german defeat.
battle of Leyte, destruction of Japanese navy.




Why do you think Dunkerque was so important ?

350,000 British Prisoners, doesnt sound big. I mean British Army wasnt that big... -_- Especially for the vastness of its Empire.

[Frederich Barbarossa]

Sadly It wasn´t .... but Dunkerque was...

[RomanSoldier9001]

Sadly It wasn´t .... but Dunkerque was...

And Dunkerque wanst? How you find Dunkerque important wanst the Brithsh and French Army defeated?
The only reason British Army wasnt total smashed was probaly because Hitler wanted to give UK a chance to have a separated peace with them Hitler never wanted to conquer Britain. Tougth the focus on destroing the French Army could also explain why he didnt advance on Dunkerque or simply a bad call on his behaf.

For me I in Europe find the Eastern Front as more important if have to pick a battle I would say Kurks probaly from there Germany couldnt never again launch a great offinse against the Soviet Union from that point Germany stay on Defensive.

In East is dificult Midway was important but didnt destroy the Japanese Navy.
I would say in East Soviet Invasion of Manchuria because it proved to Japan that it coulnt longer defend itself and for many historians and schoolars was because of fear that soviets would invaded Japan that they surrender the Atomic Bombs were important but not as such Japan had already expermiment horrible bombings with napalm that destroid must of Japan cities some of these bombing werent so different from Hiroshima and Nagasaki must of Japanese Nation wanted to keep figthing only the fear that soviets invaded Japan and kill the Emperor made them surrender to USA and rest of the West. Previous to the Invasion of Manchura Japan still have a vast empire in China after it lost Manchuko,Korea and was going to loss most of China aswell.

[ivan_the_terrible]

Sadly??

I beg to ing differ.

[Gromovnik]

Sadly??

I beg to ing differ.

But on the other hand, you're not a neo-nazi...

[Frederich Barbarossa]

But on the other hand, you're not a neo-nazi...

cough cough >.>

[ivan_the_terrible]

But on the other hand, you're not a neo-nazi...

True. Maybe to him it's not a consideration, but I have very little doubt what would happen to my family if Germans won that battle and advanced further.