Most important ww2 battle?

In your opinion, witch was the most important ww2 battle, if you had to only choose one, and why.

 

1. Pearl Harbor- Brought the US into the war and the Axis were then guaranteed to be toast.

2. Stalingrad- Doomed the Germans to final defeat and removed much of their offensive capability.

 

There's no such thing as the "most important" battle of WW II. They were all important in one way or another.

It's like asking a Football team which was their most important win on the way to their Super Bowl championship.

 

Single most important WW2 battle (or mission) - Nuclear attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. To split hairs the two nuke strikes strictly speaking were not a " battle" - but the sheer magnitude and damage done to the enemy were devastating since the A-bomb as the only weapon ever built up to that time, that was a war-winner. You may debate the the issues on the morality/legality of the A-bomb strikes forever, and certainly they caused immense suffering among innocent Japanese civilians. Yet America had an agenda, which was, finish the war with the fewest American and allied casualties possible.

It was the ferocity of Japanese defense of Iwo Jima earlier that year, and the huge American casualties suffered in this battle, that convinced Truman that dropping the bombs was an option. Certainly he did not want to do it and no doubt gave the decision a great deal of thought - while nukes had been tested, once, and proven to work, there was no guarantee that they would even work when deployed - but Truman was just as war weary as the rest of the American population and simply wanted to end the war.

Truman made the pragmatic decision, given the time and circumstance, much as many of us would have done, and he ordered the nuke strikes. Bottom line is that No military commander (Truman was of course, commander in chief) would ignore a potential war-winning weapon in their arsenal, (especially when you know the enemy cannot counter it) if it would help their side achieve victory!

Critics of this action often argue that dropping the bomb on "yellow people" was racist and that the Japanese were seen as less than human, so this is why they got nuked. The facts speak otherwise since Nazi Germany was first in line to be nuked. The German surrender in May 1945 prevented this. The Manahatten project was working night and day, yet the nukes were simply not deployable at that time. By August 1945 they were ready, barely- the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were the only two operational nukes in the arsenal, and it would have taken months to build more. If the Japanese had refused to surender despite the world's first nuke strike, history would have been different, yet probably the end result the exact same.

 

For me it has to be Stalingrad. With the defeat of the 6th army, came next year a disasterous effect on other big formations such as Army Group Center-when the Soviet Summer of 44 offensive literally ripped AG Center to shreads.

 

For me , it was Pearl Harbor , simply because it brought the US into the war , which caused the ultimate defeat in the western nazi campaign..and a little later the japanese defeat.

 

I agree with everything you said with the exception of the last two sentences. They are inaccurate.

Actually, there was a third nuclear device ready to be shipped overseas and it would have been ready for use against Japan by August 19th. And the US nuclear production line was capable of assembling one nuclear device every ten days thereafter.

See; Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.ask.ne.jp/~hankaku/english/np7y.html

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/72.pdf

 

As odd as it may seem I am going to row the boat with DA on this one. Every battle/ campaign was a stepping stone for the next battle/ campaign. To say that any one battle was more criticle than another would deminish the efforts of those who fought in the previous campaign.

 

I disagree with that, stalingrad for example was a turning point not only on the eastern front but for the entire German war. This in turn almost guaranteed the destruction of Germany just as did the A-bombs on the Japanese mainland.

Some operations are more important then others, some that could end the war faster or others that simply tear the enemy to pieces. What if Market Garden had really worked, would that not have been a crucial part of not only ww2 but also to do with the cold war? Perhaps the Western Allies reached Berlin before the Russians.

 

This question has been asked many times.

In my view the answer remains the same,

'Battle of the Atlantic'.


John.

 

Barbarossa was the main reason Germany lost, but I could consider it "interesting" if Overlord had failed in june 1944 would it take until summer 1945 before a new invasion could be made....and Germans could send several units to fight in the east perhaps before Bagration started.

 

imo normandy,the russians may have been over the rhine if normandy failed,cheers.

 

IMHO, Operation Bagration, also known as the destruction of Army Group Centre in 1944.

 

Both very good points, I should have known my thinking was flawed when I agreed with DA.

As far as the hypothetical success of Market Garden and the Western Allies reaching Berlin and it's affect on the Cold War: That is a very cool "What If?" and begs the question as to wether or not the Russians would have stopped their advance, and would it have lead to polarization and an earlier East V. West armed conflict.

 

1) Midway. If America lost their carrier abilities would've been decimated and America would probably fall in the ensuing battles. Britain and Russia would be alone to fight the Axis.

2) El Alamein. If Britain lost Rommel would push north and take Moscow with Manstein. Russia would fall and Britain (and America, depending on the time it happens) would be alone to fight Germany (and Japan, later on).

3) Guadalcanal. American carriers destroyed several Japanese flattops. If Japan won Australia would be cut off from American ships and most of the South Pacific would be under Japanese control.

 

We can always make more Carriers.

 

Stalingrad-It broke Germany's back and paved the way for D-Day.

 

With the failure of Operation 'Barbarossa', the entire German war effort was doomed. However, I'd point out Stalingrad as the definitive, decisive moment. There, Germany not only failed in yet another massive offensive that was supposed to end the war, but suffered in turn a major defeat (in Stalingrad and the subsequent weeks, Germany and her Allies lost some 800.000 men). From then on, it was just a matter of time for the Red Army to grow in numbers, strenght and expertise. And, no matter how important, I don't think either El Alamein-Tunisia or even Normandy, despite removing the Axis from an entire theatre of operations, did so much to cripple so decisevely the German war effort.

 

I think that is an over-simplification. Germany could not have taken Moscow, nor in 1941, nor in 1942, nor ever... with Rommel or without Rommel, who had yet 3.000 km yet to go before reaching the Soviet border between the Caspian and Black seas. Also, there is the question of how influential could be his couple hundred thousand men in the eastern meat grinder?

 

Yes, but they're so damn expensive it'd be hard to replace three carriers while have the enemy try and bomb you every day. Plus the US lost six fleet carriers and six escort carriers throughout the war. Twelve carriers is hard to remake in three and a half years while trying to pump out other warships too. Escort carriers, although carriers themselves, aren't as expensive, but still take a long time to build.