Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Most significant battle of WWII.
Options
-
09-06-2012 12:15am#1Anthony Beevor in his new book on World war II draws attention to the Battle of Khalkhin Gol in 1939 http://www.historyguy.com/worldwartwo/battle_of_khalkhin_gol_193.htm . This saw the Soviet forces under Zhukov routing Japanese troops. Beevors reckoning is that this experience meant that the Japanese decided to focus their attention on British and American forces in SE Asia rather than Russia. It also meant that when the Soviets were stretched in 1941 and 42 that they were only fighting on 1 front rather than on 2 which in theory could have allowed Hitler capture Moscow.
Beevor believes this little reported battle to be one of the most significant of WWII. Would anyone agree or disagree with this?0
Comments
-
Battle of the Atlantic :1939-45. Without the sea-lanes being kept open, it would have been impossible for the UK to have won hence this was the significant one. Premise of an oldish book - The "Battle of the Atlantic" by John Costello & Terry Hughes.0
-
In the west - Kursk.
In the east - Midway.
tac0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »Anthony Beevor in his new book on World war II draws attention to the Battle of Khalkhin Gol in 1939 http://www.historyguy.com/worldwartwo/battle_of_khalkhin_gol_193.htm . This saw the Soviet forces under Zhukov routing Japanese troops. Beevors reckoning is that this experience meant that the Japanese decided to focus their attention on British and American forces in SE Asia rather than Russia. It also meant that when the Soviets were stretched in 1941 and 42 that they were only fighting on 1 front rather than on 2 which in theory could have allowed Hitler capture Moscow.
Beevor believes this little reported battle to be one of the most significant of WWII. Would anyone agree or disagree with this?
Didn't Hitler famously ignore the conflict between the USSR and the Japanese in the east on the basis that the battle was against the Japanese and chose instead to develop his opinion of the capability of the Red Army on the Winter War against the Finns? Or is that a myth?0 -
Pearl Harbour as this is the battle that drew the USA into the war
Battle of Britian if RAF had not survived maybe Hitler would have invaded Britian.
El Alamian as it stoped Hitler getting access to Middle east oil.
The invasion of Greece as it delayed the invasion of Russia which allowed it to get to the first winter.
You could name a load of battles that caused the different countries to survive and continue on to eventually win the war. The biggest cause of Hitler defeat was his decision to invade Russia and fight a war on two fronts.0 -
In the west - Kursk.
In the east - Midway.
tac
Kursk was the largest tank battle but by then the end result of eastern front war was decided upon. The German army was in retreat already. I would put the battle of Moscow and also Stalingrad forward as more significant given that there was a greater chance of a German victory if tactics had been different.0 -
Advertisement
-
Shouldn't this be in the WW2 forum?0
-
-
jonniebgood1 wrote: »Kursk was the largest tank battle but by then the end result of eastern front war was decided upon. The German army was in retreat already. I would put the battle of Moscow and also Stalingrad forward as more significant given that there was a greater chance of a German victory if tactics had been different.
I wouldn't agree, the Germans had effectively stablished their lines in the spring of 1943. For example the third Battle of Kharkov in early spring 1943. The actual advance of German frontline was one of reason for creation of the Kursk salient (of which Opteration Zitadelle was designed to eliminate)
After Kursk the Germans were never able to mount a large scale offensive on the Eastern Front. The follow on Soviet offensives gravely weaken the German situation.
In my opinion Stalingrad was a preventable disaster. It was outcome of Hubris -- No breakout order once Manstein had gotten close enough, the belief that Luftwaffe could supply from the air etc.
To paraphrase Churchill -- in my own opinion Stalingrad was the "end of the beginning", whereas Kursk was the "beginning of the end" on the Eastern Front.0 -
I wouldn't agree, the Germans had effectively stablished their lines in the spring of 1943. For example the third Battle of Kharkov in early spring 1943. The actual advance of German frontline was one of reason for creation of the Kursk salient (of which Opteration Zitadelle was designed to eliminate)
After Kursk the Germans were never able to mount a large scale offensive on the Eastern Front. The follow on Soviet offensives gravely weaken the German situation.
The war on the east front was decided by this stage. Its aim from a German perspective was to slow the Soviet offensive by surrounding the armies in the salient and perhaps create a more solid defensive line. This was far from the blitzkreig tactics that had been their hallmark- a point made by Guderian. So if the Germans had won at Kursk I don't see how it would have altered the outcome of the war. It would have delayed the end but no more than that.0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »The war on the east front was decided by this stage. Its aim from a German perspective was to slow the Soviet offensive by surrounding the armies in the salient and perhaps create a more solid defensive line. This was far from the blitzkreig tactics that had been their hallmark- a point made by Guderian. So if the Germans had won at Kursk I don't see how it would have altered the outcome of the war. It would have delayed the end but no more than that.
No the point was to shorten the German line so that they could pursue further offenses against the Russians, after the success of Kharkov they couldn't go on the offensive again which such a large Russian Salient sticking into their line. If Zitadelle had succeded (leaving aside the enforce delay by Hitler and the work of Lucy Ring of spies) it would have destroyed at least 5 Soviet Armies.
On the contrary Blitzkrieg fighting as evident in France in 1940 and during Barbarossa was centered on creating encirclement's. This then reverted to what the germans called Kesselschlacht (Cauldron fighting) -- where the encirclement was destroyed by the slower moving troops. This is exactly what happened at Kiev in 1941 (encirclement of 700k Red Army Troops), and almost happened at Dunkirk -- other then Hitler ordering panzers to stop and thus allowing the BEF to escape.With the failure of Zitadelle we have suffered a decisive defeat. The armoured formations, reformed and re-equipped with so much effort, had lost heavily in both men and equipment and would now be unemployable for a long time to come. It was problematical whether they could be rehabilitated in time to defend the Eastern Front... Needless to say the Russians exploited their victory to the full. There were to be no more periods of quiet on the Eastern Front. From now on, the enemy was in undisputed possession of the initiative. — Heinz Guderian0 -
Advertisement
-
No the point was to shorten the German line so that they could pursue further offenses against the Russians, after the success of Kharkov they couldn't go on the offensive again which such a large Russian Salient sticking into their line. If Zitadelle had succeded (leaving aside the enforce delay by Hitler and the work of Lucy Ring of spies) it would have destroyed at least 5 Soviet Armies.
On the contrary Blitzkrieg fighting as evident in France in 1940 and during Barbarossa was centered on creating encirclement's. This then reverted to what the germans called Kesselschlacht (Cauldron fighting) -- where the encirclement was destroyed by the slower moving troops. This is exactly what happened at Kiev in 1941 (encirclement of 700k Red Army Troops), and almost happened at Dunkirk -- other then Hitler ordering panzers to stop and thus allowing the BEF to escape.
Is there any evidence of plans for 'further offensives' that would have took place if Kursk had went differently? Guderian had questioned the need for any attempt at attacking by Germany, preferring to consolidate their position in 1943. Their losses by that stage meant that they could not go on the attack so the most that a victory at Kursk could have achieved was delaying the end of the war.
Do you think it could have changed the outcome of the war?0 -
Good question.
First major turning point that changed the course for me was the D-Day invasion. No D-Day then who knows how long that conflict would have gone on for.0 -
Good question.
First major turning point that changed the course for me was the D-Day invasion. No D-Day then who knows how long that conflict would have gone on for.
The Russians would still have kicked the sh##e out of Hitler but the Berlin wall would have been build on the Alps and Pyernees mountains0 -
Fighting just one immediate front doesn't guarantee the above would have happened.0
-
I would agree that the Battle of Khalkhin Gol in 1939 is one of the most underrated in importance battles in history, on a par with the Battle on the Vistula in 1920. I doubt Russia could have survived attacks from both Germany and Japan in 1941.
I would say the most crucial battle in Western and Eastern was Dunkirk - if Hitler and Von Rundstedt had hot halted the Panzers, the BEF would have been destroyed, Churchill would not have been able to use the evacuation and the Battle of Britain to convince Britain to fight on, America would never have entered the war, and Russia would have had to face Germany without any significant Western military aid.
As for the East, Midway really was the crucial turning point - once the Japanese lost naval superiority they struggled.0 -
Fighting just one immediate front doesn't guarantee the above would have happened.
The Battle of Kursk finished off the Germans in 1943. The Germans could never again take the offensive against the Russians. Even without D-Day the Germans needed to tie up forces in France in case of an invasion. In Italy the US/British forces were struggling to achieve a decisive victory.
However in the East the Russians continued to roll over the German forces. Maybe if the US/Britian had made peace with the Germans it would have allowed the Germans to survive but the reality is that if you look at the map and see the distance the Russians covered through 1944/5 compared to the other allied forces it was always a one sided affair.
However it is hard to pick one battle and say this was the winning of the war unlike in the American Civil war where Gettyburg stands out.0 -
As per the OP , Anthony Beevor is correct that Japan suffering 2 humiliating defeats at the hands of the Russians under General Zhukov forced them to look southward for their empire building as to move North would again bring them head-to-head with Mother Russia.
Many battles are , in my opinion , heavily over-rated in terms of their importance - Battle of Britain , Dunkirk , D-Day landings , El-Alamein to name but a few.
For me the Battle of Midway is the best example of a truly decisive encounter , in the space of just a few hours the entire balance of naval power in the Pacific was drastically shifted and from then on Japan was essentially on the defensive.
The chief of the Japanese Combined Fleet , Admiral Yamamoto , had warned that he could '' run riot for 6 months , perhaps a year but after that I guarantee nothing ''. Midway was almost exactly 6 months after Pearl Harbour.........0 -
Define 'significant'
In military terms, Midway, Stalingrad and Moscow would have significant claims to be the most significant battles.
In economic terms, Battle of the Atlantic, the Arctic Convoys, the strategic bombing offensove against industrial targets
In social terms - area bombing (if that can be regarded as a battle)
But in political terms, it would have to be battles that generated a shift in grand strategy and the Battles of Britain and Khalkhin Gol would be significant in that regard.
The Battle of Britain was the first one fought with purely political objectives - to force Britain from the War, and the outcome can be argued but the fact the Brits stayed in suggests the Germans failed in their objectives and it was there first strategic reversal.
Overy's 'Interrogations' contains an account of von Runstedt's questioning after the War and he cites the Battle of Britain as the turning point - although Overy also points out that he might have been too stubborn / proud / bitter to admit that Stalingrad or anything the USSR did was more significant - in his (von Runstedt's) twisted world it was better to be outdone by the Anglo Saxons than the Slavs.
Khalkin Gol caused a power shift in the Imperial General Staff in Japan, that led to the IJN taking precedence over the Army, so naturally their favoured southern thrust displaced the Army's ideas and that had a knock-on effect on Japanese grand strategy.
Anyway, campaigns are more important than battles when in comes to winning wars so it might be more pertinent to discuss the most signifcant campaign of WWII - I think in that instance, Operation Barbarossa because of what it provoked is the most significant - and on the Soviet side, Operation Bagration for sheer scale.0 -
Excellent points you make jawgap - rarely did a battle completely alter the political / strategic thinking at the very top.
Given that the USSR defeated Germany ( and not the western allies )operation Barbarossa must be seen as the most significant campaign.
It has been alleged that when Von Runstedt cited the Battle of Britain as the most decisive battle the Russian interogators walked out in disgust , never to return.0 -
Excellent points you make jawgap - rarely did a battle completely alter the political / strategic thinking at the very top.
Given that the USSR defeated Germany ( and not the western allies )operation Barbarossa must be seen as the most significant campaign.
It has been alleged that when Von Runstedt cited the Battle of Britain as the most decisive battle the Russian interogators walked out in disgust , never to return.
I'm not denigrating the sacrifice of the USSR - the rest of the Allies together couldn't have borne a fraction of what they went through, but it may be worth remembering that they received significant assistance in the form of aircraft, locomotives, etc. This meant their own war production could be focussed on munitions and weapons.
The two most significant contributions from the rest of the Allies were probably the trucks (about 400,0000) and - if you accept that army marches on its stomach - the 2lbs of meat per week per soldier they managed to supply the Red Army with - not all of it made to the bellies of the front line troops, but enough did to make sure that the average infantryman in the Red Army was better nourished than his German counterpart.
In that regard, I'd suggest the defeat of Germany was more of a co-operative effort, while accepting that the Soviets did the majority of the fighting.0 -
Advertisement
-
If you look at diifferent battles the battle which if the Germans that would have most likly caused then to go on and win the war is the Battle of Britian or Dunkirk. If Britian had been invaded sucessfully the US would have no launch pad to attack and bomb Germany. Germany would have fought Russia and have been able to put all there attention on the campaign at hand.
Germany delayed the Operation Barbarossa from May to June due to Italy's ill fated invasion of Greece, which was assisted by Britian it also had troops tied up in North Africa because of Britian. If Operation Barbarossa had started the 15 of May as planned 5 weeks ahead of when it did. Would the Germans have reached Moscow especially if Rommell was part of the invasion before the winter of 1941.
Britian was like a bunch of flies around a runner head not causing any damage but slowing him down and distracting him.
The Russian campaign was the one that defeated Hitler because 90& of german losses were on the Eastern front. However the other allies supplied the Russians with 400,000 trucks and 2 lb of meat/soldier/day to Russia would the USA have done it if Britian was out of the war0 -
like Jawgap, i think that the political is more important than the strictly military - that once Germany and Japan were at war with the UK, the US and the USSR the war was, for them, lost - only the timing was a matter of debate.
so, for me, the important moments are those that ensured that the alliance took place/continued - so it has to be the Battle Britain: it kept the UK in the war. no Britain, no D-Day, no Strategic Bombing, no Med campaign - also, no Britain, no distraction from the USSR... the Battle of the Atlantic kept that alliance going, and the natural disaster (for the Germans) of the winter of 1941 kept Russia in the war.
people like to denegrate the impact on the great Russian-German war in the East of the Western Front - but they utterly forget that every Tonne of Concrete in the Western Wall was a Tonne of Concrete less for the Eastern front, every anti-aircraft gun in the Ruhr was an anti-tank gun less in Kursk, every two FW-190's over Hamburg was one less bomber to attack Soviet munitions factories, every Submarine built for the Battle of the Atlantic was 10+ less tanks for Army Group Center (on this alone, the 700 type VII's would have built 8,000+ German Tanks), and every kilogramme of coal used to get all this stuff to the western front was a kilo of coal less available to move ammunition, or food, or tanks to the Eastern front.
i also take issue with Khalklin Gol - i think the lesson that Stalin took from the battle was the the one he learned when he found out where it was. Stalin might miss Siberia, but the Japanese were what, 3 thousand miles away - does anyone really believe that the Japanese land forces were a threat to 'European' Russia?0 -
Adam Tooze's book the Wages of Destruction gives a detailed breakdown of war prodcution in the war economies (it's not exactly a page turner, but it is provocative).
His argument is simple - to succeed in the War the Germans needed the resources of the USSR, to secure the resources of the USSR they would need to attack the USSR, if they attacked the USSR they'd never get the resources, which meant the outcome was only a matter of time, once they set off to the east.
There's also plenty of evidence to suggest there was no 'armaments miracle' - Speer was robbing Peter to pay Paul - steel production diverted for tank prodcution produced impressive results, but it meant artillery pieces weren't being made; ammunition was in chronic short supply because the metal needed for casings was being used elsewhere and so it went on - impressive production in one area was always at the expense of other areas until they became critical and production was switched, then switched again as inventories were restored and something else was needed.
There was also the question of production techniques - a T34 is a roughly welded, crudely fabricated hunk of tracked metal. Compare it to something like a Tiger 1 - which was machined, and fabricated not just to tight tolerances but to a very high level of workmanship, but it took 14 days to produce a Tiger 1 compared to 2 to produce a T34 in 1941/42.
On the other side, every truck the US and Britain sent the USSR was one less truck they had to build themselves and more resources for tanks etc.
I think it's right to say the USSR would eventually have defeated Nazi Germany, but it wouldn't have happened in 1945.0 -
If the Germans had defeated Britian in 1940 there would have been no North Africa campaign, no Atalantic Conveys to sink. America if iy had entered the war would only have been able to fight in the Pacific.About 1/3 of german resources were spend fighting the British/USA in 1941-1943. You had the Greek/Norway campaign as well as North Africa.
If the Germans had invaded Russia earlier and could have committed there complete forces as well as having access to the Persian oil wells they would have put alo og pressure on Russia. If they had taken Moscow and had access to the Russian resources I do not know if they would have defeated Russia but it would have been a close run thing.
For this reason i think it was Britian staying in the war that was one of the most crucial events In WW11. The battle Klalklin Gol while importand was not even a close run thing the Japenese did not commit there forces in the right way I believe that the casualty figures were 3-1 in Russia favour and the japanese armen had no tanks to any great extent so if they had started to cross the vast russian Wilderness sooner or later thr Russian would have stoped them0 -
@farmerpudsey, sorry but there are a lot of 'ifs' in your statement.
Militarily Germany could never have defeated Britain in 1940 - they lacked the capacity to land an army across the Channel and keep it supplied. Their only chance lay in forcing a political change in the British Government which they reckoned bombing the population would do - the theories of the time (including Trenchard's, the Father of the RAF) suggested that civilians would panic under aerial bombardment and clamour for peace. As the British, German and Japanese populations showed, the theories were wrong.
Had the US not confronted Germany and turned on Japan they would have obliterated them - American combat power was primarily focused on Europe - if they had only the Pacific War to fight they'd have rolled up to the Japanese Home Islands in no time - after that, though, who knows.
The Germans might have taken Moscow, but given the damage done to the hinterland it's difficult to see how they could have maintained an army poorly euipped for a Russian winter in that area over winter at the end of strung out supply lines, never mind build up enough of a force to defeat the Soviet forces east of the Urals.
In one regard the Battle of Moscow could lay claim to a place among the most significant battles of WWII - it was the first time that the Soviets were able to practice deep battle operations on anything like the scale they would in subsequent offensives - even though they only had limited success it gave them a shot of much needed confidence.0 -
Jawgap we are talking about the most significante battle of WW11 so it will be 'if' and a lot of them.
Personally I thimk it was the fact that Britian remained in the war in 1940 if it had been defeated Hitler would have controled Europe and North Africa. GB was like a giant Aircraft Carrier from 1942 until 1944 bombing Germany. It tied up 1/3 of the German army it caused Germany to deflect resources in airpower and manfaucturing of Submarines that would have been diverted to Russian Front especially in 1941.
Hitler stoped the Germany from destroying the British expeditionary force in France if it had happened there would have been no regular British Army in 1941 for the NAfrica campaign.0 -
@Farmer Pudsey, I think we're in general agreement:)
The point about a Hitler raises another interesting line - some of the more significant battles in Europe ended up being significant because they provoked Hitler into disastrous courses of action.
Dunkirk, you're mentioned, but after Moscow he effectively took over personal control of the Wehrmacht and denied the German forces access to the one thing they had (at the point in the War) in abundance over the Allies - superior military leadership.
That, combined with his obsession with prestige terrain, was another nail in their coffin.0 -
Thanks for the contributions.Farmer Pudsey wrote: »Hitler stoped the Germany from destroying the British expeditionary force in France if it had happened there would have been no regular British Army in 1941 for the NAfrica campaign.The point about a Hitler raises another interesting line - some of the more significant battles in Europe ended up being significant because they provoked Hitler into disastrous courses of action.
Dunkirk, you're mentioned, but after Moscow he effectively took over personal control of the Wehrmacht and denied the German forces access to the one thing they had (at the point in the War) in abundance over the Allies - superior military leadership.
Is it not a bit easy to blame Hitler for the Military defeats of Germany while crediting the military leadership for their victories. At Dunkirk for example the halt order was initially given by Von Rundstedt and only after this sanctioned by Hitler. Rundstedt was acting on information from 4th army commander von Kluge that they needed to hold position to allow their infantry troops to catch up (source- 'Dunkirk: Fight to the Last Man' by Hugh Sebag-Montefiore). Similar can be said for most of the military leaders later in the war. Even Guderian for example who was very critical of Hitler at times was still at his side until the last months of the war. Point being if the Generals did not agree with Hitler surely they could have done something about it.0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »...Point being if the Generals did not agree with Hitler surely they could have done something about it.
while i'm always happy to lay into moral cowardice, is it not fair to say that the Byzantine power structures of Nazi Germany worked against the practice of coup?
the normal concept of Coup is the people with the guns moving against the people without the guns - but in Nazi Germany, the Army wasn't the only heavily armed force, and added to that, the internal security organs with their sources/collaborators within the Army meant that even if 'the Army' could stage a coup and overwhelm the other heavily armed forces of the state, the commanders involved would never have been really sure who within the Army was really with them, and who was informing on them or who would side with the other side when the time came - all of that would make a coup not only a gamble, but a gamble with a very high price if you lost.
if the Army mounted a coup in a modern western nation its leaders would know that a) there would be no organised, militarily effective physical opposition to them (as an example, if 4 (Mech) Brigade turned up in London and 'retired' the PM, who would fight them - the Metropolitian Police?), and b), if they lost they'd go to prison - in Nazi Germany, you face someone elses Mechanized Brigade, and if you lost you'de end up on a meathook and your children would be shot. big, big difference...0 -
Advertisement
-
In one sense - Thank God Hitler interfered to the degree he did. A competent strategic leadership, gifted tactical leadership and the impressive fighting qualities of the individual soldier in the Heer were a recipe for a long war.
Even the July 20 plotters weren't interested in surrender, only in not losing the War. I'm not impugning their honour or motives, but it seems sometimes that its overlooked that they were patriots (in the positive sense of the word) and in saving Germany from the Nazis, they weren't going to capitulate unconditionally to the Allies.
I think you could argue that the Allies (especially the USSR) would have had a much harder time of it if Hitler hadn't been so distrustful of his gifted senior commanders. I think the Allies would have achieved victory, but it's quite possible it wouldn't have been an unconditional surrender and it wouldn't have happened in 1945.
On the Dunkirk point, it's right to say that the German Army were coming to the end of an energetic campaign and there was concern they were not just over-reaching, but also over-streteched at that point, with men and equipment all in need of some rest.
But another aspect related to the Luftwaffe, who Goering (another incompetent) felt were not getting their share of the 'glory.' It's another example of how they allowed petty jealousy to influence their decisionmaking.
finally, the other factor in the decision to halt the spearheads was political - Hitler thought if they went 'easy' on the BEF the Brits might be more amenable to doing a deal!0
Advertisement