The Most Important Military Battle in History

[Lt. Wittmann]

I am curious what people believe is the most important battle in all of history. By this I mean had the most significant impact on the war and farthest reaching consequences both during and after the war. For example, by 49 BC the Roman Republic was in danger. Civil War had broken out between the forces under Pompey and those under Caesar, at stake was the entire Roman world. The fate of which was decided near a small trading town called Phasalus on 6 June 48 BC (according to the Julian Calendar). Here the Republic began its transformation into one of the most powerful empires ever seen on this planet.

After the failed siege, and near destruction of his army at Dyrrhachium, Caesar regrouped and rallied his men (gaining some strength by reincorporating Domitius Calvinus' detachement) while Pompey linked up with forces under the command of Metellus Scipio following Caesar southward. Pompey's forces caught up with Caesar at Pharsalus and, under pressure by senators and the confidence of his own men, decided to give battle. He had much in his favor having both the high ground and an estimated 45,000 troops to Caesar's 22,000 along with 7,000 cavalry as opposed to 1,000 under Caesar. Caesar did, however, posses some battle hardened heavy infantry, many 10 year veterans that fought with him in Gaul, as opposed to Pompey and his many lightly armed infantry and impressed slaves along with soldiers provided by allied kingdoms.

Pompey, having a river on his left flank, concentrated all of his cavalry on the left hoping to break Caesar from sheer numbers alone. Caesar, noticed this and put all of his cavalry on his right flank along with 6 hidden cohorts of some of his finest infantry behind the cavalry so that they were not noticed. When Pompey's cavalry did attack, and nearly broke the line, their chief weapon, momentum, was stopped by Caesar's Cavalry and the 6 cohorts were brought forth to destroy the cavalry and supporting infantry. The units were routed and Caesar began to press forward threatening Pompey's left flank. Seeing this, many of the allied troops began to break and flee leaving only Pompey's Roman Legionaires to fight, but Caesar, seeing opportunity, told his men to spare all fellow Romans and only slaughter the fleeing allies. The Roman Legionaires under Pompey thus began to stop fighting, some even joining Caesar's forces resulting in a total route of Pompey's army. The battle had been won by a smaller, more determined and better trained force lead by a general who knew exactly when and how to use his forces.

The battle itself pretty much ended the Civil War and began events that would culminate in the assasination of Gaius Julius Caesar by the senators of Rome sparking a whole new Civil War and the beginning of the days of the Roman Empire. Caesar had sown the seeds of Empire that would "Romanize" and "modernize" native barbarians. Barbarians who would later form the countries of France, the German States, the Italian States, Great Britain, Spain, and others.

[Anonymosity]

There are just so many that fit this criteria it's not fair to call one more important than the other. I mean I bet the first few groups of humans had "Military Battles" that changed our view of the world, but they weren't necessarily big.

There are many very important ones out there so it's not fair to argue which is worse than the other.

[Praetorian Historian]

To broad. Can't pick one battle out of all of history as the "Most Important." It is impossible. You'd have to break it down by wars and then it is just by which was most decisive in your opinion to bring about the victory. For instance...Napoleonic Wars = Battle of Leipzig, American Civil War = *****sburg, Franco-Prussian War = Battle of Mars-La-Tour, etc., etc.

[K2-Kelly]

Though hard to pick one and honestly no historian by any means, I'd almost have to say either the London Blitz, or D-Day..........With most others and due to their scope upon the globe, more so the ability to sustain a fight.....Many before that time IMLTHO would have eventually sorted themselves out similar to how things are now......

However, if England had fallen who's to say with the U.S. sentiment at that time what would have transpired, the same with the Soviet Union as Germany may have chosen to ease off England of primary concern..........D-Day pretty direct, as the Axis might of just said "ok lets pause and focus on what we have"...D-Day forced a decision, one that in truth due to its success fractured fully axis forces.........That war, truly having global ramifications.

But all just guessing with limited knowledge.

[Greek soldier]

The battle of Marathon. Had the Greeks lost, now there wouldn't had been any "Western World".

[achilles]

I agree that the battle of Marathon was essential in drawing a clear line between what is now known as "East" and "West".

The battle of Normandy was also very important but i'd say that in recent history the battle of Vienna (12 September, 1683)was extremely important in keeping the Ottoman cancer out of W.Europe. Sadly, the Balkan peninsula could not escape that decadence.

[RFSU]

The battle of Marathon. Had the Greeks lost, now there wouldn't had been any "Western World".

That might be just a little far-fetched mate.

In recent history I would say the battle of Kursk.

[thscott83]

Antietam, Sharpsburg, MD, September 17th, 1862.

[Icarus1]

Surely not the most important battle, but one of the big battles:

Julius Caesar attacking the Helevtians after they wanted to emigrate to Spain. Caesar was afraid the Helevtians and the other tribes of the celts wanted again to invade Rome and declared war to them. Caesar was afarid of the celts, because 80 years ago they already burned down Rome. Waht he didn't realize, is that his reforms in the Legions had lead to the most professional and well equipped army. He attacked the Helvetians (from Helvetia, the old name of Switzerland) at a final battle at Bibracte 58 BC. There he realized finally what power his new reformed Legions had because he destroyed the tribes of the Helvetians without problems in a few days.

After the capitulation of the helvetian tribes there was no power in central europe and othe celt tribes tried to invaded. Ceasar got involved in this chain reaction and it ended with the battle against celt leader Vercingetorix (who united the celts and invented some kind of guerilla war against the Legions).

[madjack]

Battle of Britain. Hard to liberate Europe without that bigass aircraft carrier and assembly area.
.

[Impulse_t0]

I agree that the battle of Marathon was essential in drawing a clear line between what is now known as "East" and "West".

The battle of Normandy was also very important but i'd say that in recent history the battle of Vienna (12 September, 1683)was extremely important in keeping the Ottoman cancer out of W.Europe. Sadly, the Balkan peninsula could not escape that decadence.

Please, Stalingrad and Kursk were much more important battles. Even if there was no Normandy the Russians would have eventually defeated Germany after the Germans lost the two key battles of Stalingrad and Kursk. After Stalingrad the Germans were finished.

[gaijinsamurai]

But even IF the Germans had somehow won Stalingrad and Kursk, they would have been defeated elsewhere. Time was on the Soviets side, as there was no way the Germans could have sustained the attrition rate the way the Soviets could. On top of that, there were countless other factors, such as the logistics of sending more troops and materiel across the expanse of the Russian and Ukrainian steppe, fighting a war on two fronts, and occupying peoples who they treated as "untermensch". But, I agree that the campaigns on the Eastern Front were of greater importance to the outcome of the war than Normandy. Especially Operation Bagration, which occurred at the same time, and had far more disastrous effects on the Wehrmacht.

In semi-modern times, the Battle of Waterloo was of greatest importance to Europe. If Napoleon had won the battle and had been able to sustain his victory afterwards, Europe would have been much different, and without the rule of the Kaiser in Germany, WWI would not have happened. Also, the Bolsheviks might not have toppled the Czar so soon (if at all-A Russian Revolution may have been eventually inevitable, but perhaps someone like Alexander Kerensky would have had more followers than Lenin) and Russia would not have turned into a Communist state.

Of course, there are a lot of "what ifs", but this argument makes speculation inevitable.

[Kitsune]

Impulse_t0 wrote: Please, Stalingrad and Kursk were much more important battles. Even if there was no Normandy the Russians would have eventually defeated Germany after the Germans lost the two key battles of Stalingrad and Kursk. After Stalingrad the Germans were finished.

You are contradicting yourself here, mate. If the Germans would have been finished after Stalingrad (they were not by the way) then Kursk would not have been such an important battle, wouldn't it?

Despite Nomandy being usually displayed as THE DECISIVE battle of WWII, it is certainly of lesser importance for the defeat of Germany than the battles on the Eastern Front. It is entirely possible that the Soviets might have won the war without a Western offensive especially with the ammount of logistical support they received. (A Soviet victory would have been by no means 100% certain, however. The losses the Soviets suffered could not have been endured very much longer by them so a different outcome than a total Soviet victory is definitely a possibility.)
However, in case of a defeat of Germany without direct Western Allied support, Stalin would have ended up dominating all of Germany, or possibly even large parts of France...with great ramifications for the World after WWII. The large number of especially American boots on the ground prevented such a developement in 1945. And these would not have been there if the Western Allies had been thrown back into the channel in the weeks after D-Day. With this in mind, the outcome of the Normandy battle was important, though not in the way it was intended back then.




On a more general note, the problem with this discussion is that the farther one goes back in time the more important the battles potentially get. For example, even a small battle that had prevented the unification of a couple of Latin and Etruscian villages to a town (called "Roma") would have had far more impact on the history of mankind than everything that happened in WWII. Who knows, a now forgotten fight between some ape-like beings in our prehistoric past may even have ended with Neanderthalians ruling the world today...
Therefore it might be better to stick to a more specified timeframe for this debate.

[Ivo]

Antietam, Sharpsburg, MD, September 17th, 1862.

So what your saying if Lee had won what would have happened??

[PrivatePyle]

Please, Stalingrad and Kursk were much more important battles. Even if there was no Normandy the Russians would have eventually defeated Germany after the Germans lost the two key battles of Stalingrad and Kursk. After Stalingrad the Germans were finished.

But if we had failed at d-day, and the Russians still beat the Germans, how much different would the next 50 years have been.

It wasnt a battle, but I think the nagasaki and hiroshima bombings did a lot more than end the war, I think it really kicked off the arms race and sent a signal to the russians.

[JVeld]

Please, Stalingrad and Kursk were much more important battles. Even if there was no Normandy the Russians would have eventually defeated Germany after the Germans lost the two key battles of Stalingrad and Kursk. After Stalingrad the Germans were finished.
Im gonna have to agree with you on that one 100% .......

[achilles]

Please, Stalingrad and Kursk were much more important battles. Even if there was no Normandy the Russians would have eventually defeated Germany after the Germans lost the two key battles of Stalingrad and Kursk. After Stalingrad the Germans were finished.

You didnt read my post carefully. I didnt say that Normandy was THE most important battle of WWII but certainly one of the most crucial ones, and from where i stand, one of the most essential battles of history.

Still, your claim is purely hypothetical. Noone can knows what would have happened to the Germans, had Normandy never occured.

Stalingrad and Kursk were of equal importance but battles, especially in a World War, are better perceived synergistically and not isolated. All battles put together is what eventually crushed the German axis.

[K2-Kelly]

Please, Stalingrad and Kursk were much more important battles. Even if there was no Normandy the Russians would have eventually defeated Germany after the Germans lost the two key battles of Stalingrad and Kursk. After Stalingrad the Germans were finished.

I disagree......Yet let me temper that with...."If there was NO Stalingrad and Kursk" D-Day would have been a disaster. Yet I believe, if there had never been a Normandy invasion Germany could of regrouped and fought the Soviets full force.

So a combination of the two fronts really achieving it......Yet if there had been no Normandy (simply due to date vs.).....The Soviets might of been in a lot of trouble unable to keep the pressure on.........

The far fetched scenario of that?............Soviets push the Axis back part way, then stalemate, then an ending of hostilities. Hence, most of Europe in the hands of the Germans, and bits of the Soviet Union......Think about it, what would the Soviet Union, United States, England have done if Great Britain, Pearl Harbor & the USSR had not been attacked?.......Impossible to say, yet few were itching to save countries like poland, the pacific Islands, China and such....France possibly even at the cost it is now known to have been..........A bit of war, then a lul....Then suing for peace often ends up in a profitable land grab as time alone makes folks apathetic.

[watcher]

For Western society I would say the defeat of the Red Army by Poland in 1920-21.
This was the first major push westward to expand Communism and Poland stopped them at the Vistula. ( miracle of the Vistula).

Then the grinding stone of Naziism was applied later to attempt to grind Poland to dust.

Didn't work.

May Poland always stick in the craw of the Socialists and their ilk

[Alan]

I disagree......Yet let me temper that with...."If there was NO Stalingrad and Kursk" D-Day would have been a disaster. Yet I believe, if there had never been a Normandy invasion Germany could of regrouped and fought the Soviets full force.



Disagree, for simple reason of reality.

You can rebuild tanks and rebuild factories, but how do you immediately replace human beings?

Sorry, but the USSR would've won regardless of the west's help, as by the time 1943 rolled around, the Germans were being crushed back to Berlin.

[CPL Trevoga]

I agree that the battle of Marathon was essential in drawing a clear line between what is now known as "East" and "West".

The battle of Normandy was also very important but i'd say that in recent history the battle of Vienna (12 September, 1683)was extremely important in keeping the Ottoman cancer out of W.Europe. Sadly, the Balkan peninsula could not escape that decadence.

I agree, if not for that, there would be no Rome, no Napoleon, no Poland, no Stalingrad, no West. Did I say there would be no Poland?

[The Starfox Kid]

The Battle of Marathon, Operation Overlord {D-Day}, Battle of Endor {HEHE}

[Saranof]

I wonder if we'd actually get anywhere here if some people would just stop pushing their patriotic/political views instead of the facts

[thscott83]

So what your saying if Lee had won what would have happened??
No Emancipation Proclamation, no Union victory. There probably would have been some form of peace settlement, despite Union victories in the West. A Confederate victory north of the Potomac, so close to Washington, would have broken Lincoln's back. The United States would have been divided, limiting American influence for the next hundred years on both the Pacific and Europe. Of course, *****sburg was important, but if the Antietam campaign had gone differently, there would have been no need for *****sburg.

Antietam is a wonderful place to visit compared to *****sburg. Fewer junior high school classes etc... quieter.

Maybe it is arrogant to declare a battle on American soil the most important in human history. There is a good case for Marathon among others. This question is very open ended and subjective.

[Kilgor]

Sorry, but the USSR would've won regardless of the west's help, as by the time 1943 rolled around, the Germans were being crushed back to Berlin.

The soviet victory in ww2 was one of the most remarkable victories and came at a cost that was uncountably cruel. The soviet union came very close to defeat, and without western Aid and dilution of germany forces, the result could have been very different.

[Praetorian Historian]

Battle of Endor {HEHE}

Roflcopters

[K2-Kelly]

The soviet victory in ww2 was one of the most remarkable victories and came at a cost that was uncountably cruel. The soviet union came very close to defeat, and without western Aid and dilution of germany forces, the result could have been very different.

Well, if you think about it........Imagine no African campaign, no further sorties from England be they British or U.S., no resistance in the Pacific allowing the Japanese to not just stage at the border yet cross it........

Sorry, though the Soviet Union and it's people put up one hell of a fight, and really got some ferocious payback after........If it had not been for the western activity they would have been finished soon after Stalingrad......

HOWEVER......

Without the Soviet fight I sincerely doubt the west alone could of done the job in the time frame it did........Remember, the west's bombing campaigns really took the guts out of Germany's war machine........Yet what if they had all the planes from the Eastern front to aid in the defense/offense.

Frankly.......For a tiny little nation with few natural resources the Germans/Japanese/Italians kicked ass......and seriously threatened the world as we know it now. It took everyone to defeat them. Simply how it was, and coincidently, 1 bit of bad/evil in any conflict that is determined often takes many good to defeat it.............Called life.

[chuckster]

IMHO, in order to qualify for one of the most important battles in history it has to be a battle that could have gone either way.

Some historical battles were largely decided before they were fought due to an imbalance of forces. For example, I think the battle of Stalingrad was pretty much destined to be a Soviet victory because of the sheer size of the Red Army. Likewise, the battle of Tours was important because it stopped the Muslim incurrsions at the French border but most historians think the Moors simply over extended themselves by invading France.

One battle that comes to mind is the Battle of Midway. The numbers of carriers on both sides was closely balanced and an American defeat could have forced America to come to some kind of terms with Japan in order to concentrate on fighting Germany.

Another battle is Waterloo. Either side could have won, but a victory by Napoleon would have extended the Napoleonic age by years. Related to this is Trafalgar, if Nelson's squadron had failed to destroy the Franco-Spanish fleet or even worse been destroyed themselves perhaps Napoleon could have succeeded in gettin an army ashore in Britain.

[Impulse_t0]

I disagree......Yet let me temper that with...."If there was NO Stalingrad and Kursk" D-Day would have been a disaster. Yet I believe, if there had never been a Normandy invasion Germany could of regrouped and fought the Soviets full force.

So a combination of the two fronts really achieving it......Yet if there had been no Normandy (simply due to date vs.).....The Soviets might of been in a lot of trouble unable to keep the pressure on.........

The far fetched scenario of that?............Soviets push the Axis back part way, then stalemate, then an ending of hostilities. Hence, most of Europe in the hands of the Germans, and bits of the Soviet Union......Think about it, what would the Soviet Union, United States, England have done if Great Britain, Pearl Harbor & the USSR had not been attacked?.......Impossible to say, yet few were itching to save countries like poland, the pacific Islands, China and such....France possibly even at the cost it is now known to have been..........A bit of war, then a lul....Then suing for peace often ends up in a profitable land grab as time alone makes folks apathetic.

Wow some excellent arguments to what I said, I thought people would just call me an idiot again.

[SrB-23Q]

I wonder if we'd actually get anywhere here if some people would just stop pushing their patriotic/political views instead of the facts
hey ill be in halmstad on monday, im going 2 visit family.

[IronFinn]

Its not as much a battle but the moment when mongols were about to overrun Europe and turned back because their khan died, that was a turning point also for the whole western world.

[roland]

The most important Battle of modern time is the battle of the Berezina: this battle is the symbol of the Napoleon great army extermination in Russia.

In Russia 500 000 experienced soldiers died. Those who had previously saved the Revolution against the agression of 6 British led and funded coalitions of tyrans.

After the defeat in Russia, the defeat of the allies by the coalised was just a question of time.

So the battles of Dresde and Waterloo are just the confirmation of the unavoidable outcome. Sorry to pop some British and Prussian bubbles ..

The defeat of the allies mark the stop of the spreading of the Republic and Republican ideal in Europe, the restoration of tyranic king's power and was followed by a big wave of repression all over Europe and the rewritting of history in Britain and in "Prussified" Germany.

At last, the defeat of France let the room for Prussia to do what it dreamed for centuries but france had successfully prevented until then: unify the German states around a nationalist and militarist ideology.

Only after WWII Germany got "unprussified" and could go back to it's natural and civilized Rhenan roots.

[Lokos]

Yet I believe, if there had never been a Normandy invasion Germany could of regrouped and fought the Soviets full force.


Regrouped with what?

Although the forces Germany commited to the Western Front were significant, they were not decisive. Until mid-1944, in fact, the Germans were losing ground in the East despite only having incredibly weak paper tiger formations in the West. Meaning that they were in the process of being defeated despite the vast bulk of the combat capable (an important distinction, as, until very late 1943, France was a staging ground for units in the process of heavy reinforcement or reconstitution) Wehrmacht/SS fighting against the Soviets.

In June 1944, Germany's 'full force' would have been but a drop in an ocean. By July 1944, Soviet offensives were seldom stopped by German resistance - only by logistical overextension.

The far fetched scenario of that?............Soviets push the Axis back part way, then stalemate, then an ending of hostilities

Most certainly not after mid-1943. There was no advantage to making peace to the Soviets.

The soviet union came very close to defeat, and without western Aid and dilution of germany forces, the result could have been very different.

... And what of the ostensible logistical bottlenecks? What of the impracticability of deploying every last unit on a single front? The Germans could not, physically, deploy the entire Wehrmacht/SS on the Eastern Front. Borders still had to be defended, hostile territories garrisoned. The Soviet Union, too, had to maintain significant forces in the Far East and in the Caucaus.

........Imagine no African campaign

One badly undersupplied German panzer division, a light division and an assortment of other insignificant formations would have made just about zero strategic impact on the Eastern Front.

........If it had not been for the western activity they would have been finished soon after Stalingrad......


A very puzzling statement. How so?

The RKKA (Red Army) was growing, strengthening and developing before, during and after the Stalingrad defensive and offensive operations. Manstein's backhanded blow sent depleted, undersupplied Soviet formations reeling at Kharkov. But that doesn't change the fact that the era of German strategic and operational dominance was over. By concentrating available formations and reserves, the RKKA could (after 1942) defeat the Wehrmacht/SS on any given ground, strategically speaking.

........Remember, the west's bombing campaigns really took the guts out of Germany's war machine........

German tank production, for example, peaked in December 1944. How can that be construed as 'taking the guts out of Germany's war machine'?

.......For a tiny little nation with few natural resources the Germans/Japanese/Italians kicked ass......

Read 'The Soviet Economy and the Red Army 1930-1945'. I think you'll be surprised. The Germans had access to roughly twice as much heavy industry and a far greater strategic resource base (excluding oil) when compared to the Soviet Union in 1941. The situation deteriorated even further in 1941, when the Germans occupied the SU's industrial heartland, and wiped out access to 60% of the vital industrial resources required for military production.

With an industrial potential roughly half that of the GGR, the SU was outproducing Germany in just about everything by mid-1942.

The Germans were not 'a tiny little nation'. Neither was Japan. Even the Italians still ranked as a major power.

no resistance in the Pacific allowing the Japanese to not just stage at the border yet cross it........


The Japanese dropped the northern option by October 1940. Their experiences at Khalkin Gol and elsewhere in Mongolia/Manchuria forced them to appreciate the potential difficulties of such an option.

Hitler's unilateral wheeling and dealing (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) didn't help.

Lokos

[jango]

The battle of Thermopyle, overlord , waterloo ,

[martinexsquaddie]

battle of britian and d-day
otherwise no liberation of western europe :(
Soviets beat the NAzi's but did'nt bring liberty just a change in tyrant:(

[Pooterman]

Id have to go with Grenada.

[Kilgor]

German tank production, for example, peaked in December 1944. How can that be construed as 'taking the guts out of Germany's war machine'?



Another time to despel more soviet produced myths about the american and british bombing campaign.

German tank production "peaked" in 1944 because of albert speer's reforms where finally comming into effect, and tank and fighter production given priority. In the minds of simple and biased people this is assumed to mean strat bombing ws a failure, but the picture is far more complicated. It is true that germany military output trebled between 1941 and 1944, but strat bombing placed a strict ceiling on what could be done. Dispersal of industry from air attack severly limited what german output could achieve. A prime example, HE162s being made in underground salt mines.

Allied bombing finally came of age in the last year of the war with the destruction of the luftwaffe.

Some figures.
Albert speer at the end of january 1945 gave a briefing at what bombing had done to german production schedules for 1944. 35% fewer tanks than planned, 31% fewer aircraft, 42% fewer lorries. On this day he also said "the war is over in the area of heavy industry and armaments".

Railroad journeys were halved from 1943 figures, and severly hampered transport and logitistics.

Absenteeism in the ford plant in cologne rose to 25% for the whole year because of bombing, and a more distant BMW works in munich it was at 20%. Work loss on these scales was very significant. Workers who did show up were anxious, listless and far less productive.

Diversion of Resources.
By 1944 1/3 of artillery was for AA, 20% of all ammo was for AA, 1/3 of optics for AA, and 2/3 of all radar and signals equipment. 50% of electrical output for radar Over 2million germans were engaged in anti aircraft defence. 55,000 AA guns were deployed on the western front, including 75% of the Flak 88 guns. 4/5 of fighter aircraft were diverted from the eastern front for air defence.

Im sure lokos would agree these resources could have been used far better on the eastern front.

[Lokos]

Been reading a bit of Ye Olde Albert's memoirs, have we?

but strat bombing placed a strict ceiling on what could be done

Is that so? And what was the actual ceiling? The downturn in production coincides strangely with the loss of Germany's major industrial areas (the Prussian industrial basin, especially). Not the increasing effectiveness of the Allied bombing campaign.

Albert speer at the end of january 1945 gave a briefing at what bombing had done to german production schedules for 1944. 35% fewer tanks than planned, 31% fewer aircraft, 42% fewer lorries. On this day he also said "the war is over in the area of heavy industry and armaments".

Two quick points:

1) Was the 35% additional tank production realistic in the first place, considering available resources and the capacities of production facilities? The same goes for aircraft and lorries. What of the effect of industrial bottlenecks? Of the failure of the logistical system? How was Germany to fuel, arm and man these extra vehicles? To produce the necessary spare parts? To get them to the front reliably?

2) You yourself have often admitted the intrinsic inefficiency of the German system of military production stemming from bureaucratic ineptitude and competition. What effect do you think this had on German production for 1944?

Over 2million germans were engaged in anti aircraft defence. 55,000 AA guns were deployed on the western front, including 75% of the Flak 88 guns. 4/5 of fighter aircraft were diverted from the eastern front for air defence.

Im sure lokos would agree these resources could have been used far better on the eastern front.

The '2 million Germans' engaged in AA defence were the extremely young, the old and the infirm. As a resource, they were negligible, and when committed to combat proved a liability moreso than an asset. On the Eastern Front their impact would have been severely limited.

As for the fighter craft: it didn't matter. How were the novice pilots of the 1944 Luftwaffe to stand up to a Soviet airforce that was going to be severely outnumbering them regardless of the proportion of Luftwaffe fighters in the East?

Re: Flak 88... And they were going to be transporting the extra munition for these 55,000 extra guns how exactly? The extra fuel required for transport? The hundreds of thousands extra men required to man those guns?! Men that were simply not available, if I may add. Let us not even mention the supplies for those men.

Finally:

'Taking the guts' out of a war industry implies a decrease in production. No such decrease was evident until the production areas themselves fell. In 1941 the Wehrmacht 'took the guts' out of Soviet war industry by taking over or destroying upwards of 40% of it (and rendering unproductive, temporarily, a further 20%). Production was considerably diminished from June 1941 until May 1942 when only the most desperate measures extracted maximum results from a relatively weak heavy industrial base.

That is not to say that German production of war materiel was not harmed by the strategic bombing campaign. Far from it. But did it 'take the guts' out of the German war industry? Nonsense. In December 1944 the primary issue was finding men to fill out those tank crews, not the tanks themselves. Same goes for aircraft and artillery. It was a manpower crisis, generally, and a trained manpower crisis, specifically, that resulted in the decline of the Wehrmacht and the SS. Those institutions still retained massive armaments with adequate supplies of ammunition.

A corrolary crisis was the looming inability of the German government to assure a steady supply of fuel to frontline units (tank, aircraft and panzer grenadier).

In 1944, production shortfalls were not the primary concern of the German government.

Lokos

[Kilgor]

The question is for you. Without the dilution of germany forces, without the diversion of resources against strategic bombing, without the vast quantity of raw materials supplied under lend lease, do you think the soviets without doubt could have won?

There is no doubt strat bombing did considerable harm to the german war effort (read albert speer's autobiography) and considerably made the allied push into germany from east and west easier. The problem is that the soviet union at the time did not believe in bombing, as comrade Tupolev ended up the gulag. It was soviet policy to downplay and distort the damage that bombing did indeed do.

[Lokos]

Without the dilution of germany forces, without the diversion of resources against strategic bombing, without the vast quantity of raw materials supplied under lend lease, do you think the soviets without doubt could have won?


How did this become a question of how much damage the West inflicted on Germany vis a vis their overall military efforts? The question at hand is solely concerning the impact of strategic bombing on the German war industry and resulting decrease in overall military potential. Don't turn this into a 'the West SO did pull their weight in WW2' sort of argument. It is not.

There is no doubt strat bombing did considerable harm to the german war effort (read albert speer's autobiography)

There is also no doubt it did not 'gut' the German war industry.

It was soviet policy to downplay and distort the damage that bombing did indeed do.

In that same vein, it was Allied policy to over-emphasise the role of strategic bombing in the decline and downfall of the Third Reich. Pick your poison. I choose neither. My position is simple: 'Strategic bombing significantly harmed German industry - but it did not gut it.'

Lokos

[GroznyConquerer]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[Smok]

Warsaw 1920. Poles stopped bolsheviks and saved Europe again (we did it in 1683 too).

[pacific_waters]

ther eis no doubt that there are many battles which changed the cours of history buy i submit that there are 2 which stand out, Tours, 732 and Vienna, 1683.

[Erdene]

Its not as much a battle but the moment when mongols were about to overrun Europe and turned back because their khan died, that was a turning point also for the whole western world.

Oh yes, with Subutai leading our hordes, who knows what would have happened :roll:

[Labud]

the battle of Vienna (12 September, 1683)was extremely important in keeping the Ottoman cancer out of W.Europe. Sadly, the Balkan peninsula could not escape that decadence.

About Ottoman expansion in Europe, I think that battle on Marica (1371) was the most important. After that battle Byzantine, Bulgaria, and some of Serbian principalities became Turkish vasals. The second important battle was battle of Mohacs (1526). After that battle, Turks became to expand in Panonia.

About Marica battle, this battle iwas very tragi-comic. Two mightiest Serbian magnats in ruined Serbian empire, Mrnjavchevic brothers (king Vukashin and despot Ugljesha) organized great army to fight against Turks (but other Serbian magnats didn't want to help them). Because of might of their army they were so sured in victory, that whole Serbian army had got drunk near village of Chernomen. And during the night small Turkish unit came to the camp and slaughtered all drunk Serbs on sleep.

[Amethystfretchen]

Battle in the Teutoburg forest (German Teutoburger Wald): the defeat of the Roman commander Publius Quintilius Varus against the Germanic tribesmen of the Cheruscian leader Arminius in 9 CE. Three legions were annihilated and Germania remained independent from Roman rule. :


http://www.tricon.homepage.t-online.de/historienbilder/h4.jpg
...the battle was important. The Roman empire met its limits. Tiberius accepted that there were areas without towns that were not predigested for Roman rule. During the next centuries, the Germanic tribes learned from Rome, and Rome learned from them. But always, Germania remained independent.

This had serious consequences. One example may suffice to illustrate this: if the Romans had kept the country between the Rhine and Elbe, the North Sea tribes that were later known as Saxons would have spoken Latin. The English language would -for better or worse- never have existed, and German would have been marginal. One result would have been a considerably poorer understanding of reality: without the German language, a philosopher like Heidegger would have been impossible. And without the Anglo-Saxon dialects, these lines would have been written in a romanic language not unlike French or Spanish. The great linguistic division of today's western world would simply not exist without the battle in the Teutoburg Forest.


http://www.livius.org/te-tg/teutoburg/teutoburg01.htm#Introduction

[Freibier]

I second the Teutoburg battle - glad I didn't grow up speaking a latin language due to that battle

[perdurabo]

moust important Battles of Poles:
Viena - again without this battle there wouldn't be any west we would all be muslim now
Warsaw 1920 - without this battle western europe would be comunist

[Musashi]

Antietam, Sharpsburg, MD, September 17th, 1862.
IIRC 53,000 Americans (both from USA and CSA) died on that day :roll:
It was the bloodiest day of the Civil War.

[Dif]

Stalingrad. Like reaction of my german coleagues to that word :-)

[Limeyfellow]

So what your saying if Lee had won what would have happened??

Not alot. The war might have gone on for a few more battles then it did. The industrialisation in the North and the greater numbers and resources, help of the French and so on made the conclusion of the war pretty inevitable. Sure Antietam was a bloody battle and all but it hardly was a conclusive battle and when the North got the British from not siding with the South by introducing the slave issue the South was pretty much done for.

[Lokos]

Viena - again without this battle there wouldn't be any west we would all be muslim now


Yes? So the Spanish Empire, the French, the strongest German states, the Italian states, England etc. would have all folded like a house of cards had the Ottoman army not been routed at Vienna? Militarily, the Spanish of the time had the finest institutions on the planet. The French were very close behind, and would overtake the Spanish shortly after the period in question. How could you possibly make this kind of suggestion?

Warsaw 1920 - without this battle western europe would be comunist

So the Red Army - which had already overreached by grabbing at Poland, and outrunning its logistical network - was supposed to conquer Western Europe? Really?

Lokos

[Kilgor]

So the Red Army - which had already overreached by grabbing at Poland, and outrunning its logistical network - was supposed to conquer Western Europe? Really?

Lokos

"probe Europe with the bayonets of the Red Army." as comrade Lenin put it.

[perdurabo]

Yes? So the Spanish Empire, the French, the strongest German states, the Italian states, England etc. would have all folded like a house of cards had the Ottoman army not been routed at Vienna? Militarily, the Spanish of the time had the finest institutions on the planet. The French were very close behind, and would overtake the Spanish shortly after the period in question. How could you possibly make this kind of suggestion?

just to refresh your memory that battle took almoust all those strong German states

30,000-man Polish forces (Lithuanians did not take part in the battle),
18,500 Austrian troops led by Charles V, Duke of Lorraine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_V%2C_Duke_of_Lorraine),
19,000 Franconian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franconia), Swabian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swabia) and Bavarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavaria) troops led by Prince Georg Friedrich of Waldeck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Georg_Friedrich_of_Waldeck),
9,000 Saxon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electorate_of_Saxony) troops led by John George III, Elector of Saxony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_George_III%2C_Elector_of_Saxony).if Vena would fall, rest of euorpe would fall too maybe not shortly after but it would fall.


So the Red Army - which had already overreached by grabbing at Poland, and outrunning its logistical network - was supposed to conquer Western Europe? Really?

Lokos

so the Red army would have strong reinforcements from rest of european comunists and simple workers, during this whole war there where so meany strikes that they would not need to destroy armies it would be enough to be close to fuell new revolutions

but thats my opinion, you can pick any batle you wan't even some clash beatwin 2 drunken basks p-)

[Labud]

moust important Battles of Poles:
Viena - again without this battle there wouldn't be any west we would all be muslim now


Well, the most of us on the Balkans and Panonia aren't muslims, athough we were under Turkish slavery 150-500 years.

[perdurabo]

Well, the most of us on the Balkans and Panonia aren't muslims, athough we were under Turkish slavery 150-500 years.yep our King wanted to go further and kick Turks out of Europe but rest of holly aliance didn't go for it so our visit in hungary was very unsucessfull

[Lokos]

"probe Europe with the bayonets of the Red Army." as comrade Lenin put it.

Uh-huh. And how successful do you believe the Red Army would have been, in this hypothetical scenario? I give it a solid 'not very'. Perhaps your answer differs.

just to refresh your memory that battle took almoust all those strong German states

Brandenburg? The Palatinate? Cologne? Hesse? Wurzburg? Wurttemberg?

And what of France - which could alone put more effectives on the field than the Ottoman Empire? What of Spain, with its immensely innovative tactical formations and operational thought? What of England, with its considerable resources, navy and commercial power? What of the Russians (the Ottoman Empire's worst enemy from the early 18th century onwards, their first war having taken place in 1676)?

Vienna was a glorious example of Polish martial prowess during the mid 17th century, but don't get confused. Europe was already cruising ahead of the Ottoman Empire by the mid 17th century. By the mid 18th any of the major European powers - alone - could decisively defeat the Ottoman Empire in most pitched engagements and localized affairs.

Lokos

[Kilgor]

Uh-huh. And how successful do you believe the Red Army would have been, in this hypothetical scenario? I give it a solid 'not very'. Perhaps your answer differs.




Who said anything about a military defeat of European armies ? A statement like that is just a pointless red herring. What was planned, and clearly the program under Lenin, was to ferment and agitate "workers" revolutions in Germany and elsewhere for global workers revolution. The conquest of Poland would have made goal of insurrection in the rest of Europe far more achievable.

No doubt Lenin clearly remembered the words of Marx - Who possesses Berlin possesses Germany and whoever controls Germany controls Europe."