Stalingrad was when the Germans started to be really pushed back. If the Soviets lost there Berlin would not have not been taken.
Poll
Which was the Most Significant Episode of WWII?
| The Attack on Pearl Harbor | 11% | 11% - 14 | ||||
| Battle of Stalingrad | 23% | 23% - 29 | ||||
| Operation Barbarossa | 12% | 12% - 15 | ||||
| Invasion of Poland | 4% | 4% - 6 | ||||
| Invasion of France | 0% | 0% - 1 | ||||
| D-Day | 16% | 16% - 21 | ||||
| Battle of Britain | 8% | 8% - 11 | ||||
| Battle of Midway | 0% | 0% - 1 | ||||
| Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki | 14% | 14% - 18 | ||||
| Other | 6% | 6% - 8 | ||||
| Total: 124 | ||||||
a bit of an impossible question, since most things are linked (if France was not invaded how could D-Day happen), and you can only get an ethnocentrically biased answer (an American is more likely to choose a battle America was involved in, Pearl Harbor for example)
In my honest opinion i would say the invasion of Poland since this was kind of the kickstart to a lot of the later events, which may have happened differently if at all.
Second most important comes Pearl Harbor, in part because the US joined and also because the German economy was built on american money which of course ceased to come in when they became the enemy.
interestingly untill the war broke out the US had the power to shut germany off economically at any time, since they owned the Reichbank, thereby stopping the war from happening (NOT an anti-US rant the americans would not have known that WWII was going to happen its merely an interesting observation about the weakness of 1930's Germany)
In my honest opinion i would say the invasion of Poland since this was kind of the kickstart to a lot of the later events, which may have happened differently if at all.
Second most important comes Pearl Harbor, in part because the US joined and also because the German economy was built on american money which of course ceased to come in when they became the enemy.
interestingly untill the war broke out the US had the power to shut germany off economically at any time, since they owned the Reichbank, thereby stopping the war from happening (NOT an anti-US rant the americans would not have known that WWII was going to happen its merely an interesting observation about the weakness of 1930's Germany)
Dunkirk.
If Hitler hadn't have stopped his Panzer forces from finishing off and destroying the BEF (British expeditionary force), then he wouldn't have been fighting a two front war.
If Hitlers forces had destroyed the BEF at Dunkirk, then it would have been most likely that the British would have sued for peace and in taking the British out of the war, it would have meant that they would have been no second front, no where for the USA to land and build up forces.
This might have also meant that the USA forces would have only been at war with the Japanese.
This would have left Hitlers forces to attack the USSR in nearly full force, in turn destroying the Russians and winning the Second World war.
We will never know.
If Hitler hadn't have stopped his Panzer forces from finishing off and destroying the BEF (British expeditionary force), then he wouldn't have been fighting a two front war.
If Hitlers forces had destroyed the BEF at Dunkirk, then it would have been most likely that the British would have sued for peace and in taking the British out of the war, it would have meant that they would have been no second front, no where for the USA to land and build up forces.
This might have also meant that the USA forces would have only been at war with the Japanese.
This would have left Hitlers forces to attack the USSR in nearly full force, in turn destroying the Russians and winning the Second World war.
We will never know.
Even without England or the US i beleive the Russians could have still won. They had the climate and already 80% of Hitlers forces upon them. They would have been pushed back behind Stalingrad the war would be prolonged but in the end the allies would have still won. And even if he closed off a 2 front war there would be rebellions he still wouldnt be able to concentrate 100% of his troops it would be more like 90% others would be trying to hold down rebellions and i think at a point the rebellions would eventually break hitlers occupying force and a 2 front war would be opened again. This would leave Hitler vulnerable while his troops are fighting in Russia he would have an uprising to a primarily non combat zone which when the armed forces would be beaten there Hitler would be fucked cause they would be so close to his home. Also the US would be able to focus on Japan and possibly the US+Russia could form together after the fall of Japan this would make them a very powerful force. Now that would be a bloody amazing war if it went that way.paranoid101 wrote:
Dunkirk.
If Hitler hadn't have stopped his Panzer forces from finishing off and destroying the BEF (British expeditionary force), then he wouldn't have been fighting a two front war.
If Hitlers forces had destroyed the BEF at Dunkirk, then it would have been most likely that the British would have sued for peace and in taking the British out of the war, it would have meant that they would have been no second front, no where for the USA to land and build up forces.
This might have also meant that the USA forces would have only been at war with the Japanese.
This would have left Hitlers forces to attack the USSR in nearly full force, in turn destroying the Russians and winning the Second World war.
We will never know.
Yeah the best of the German forces were in the east, even if the Russians lost Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad I think there single minded determination would eventually give them victory!
The economic aid Russia received from its allies was more important to the war effort than D-Day! Controversial!
The economic aid Russia received from its allies was more important to the war effort than D-Day! Controversial!
Last edited by Jepeto87 (2006-12-11 10:04:02)
pearl harbor. although the more i think about it, probably not so much the most important. it did get the US off their asses though. without US involvement, the shit would have really hit the fan.
stalingrad was mighty important as well.
stalingrad was mighty important as well.
Remember Me As A Time Of Day
Miller wrote:
I said Pearl Harbor. If the japs hadn't hit there, the US wouldn't have entered the war for a long time.
Operation Barbarossa was the incident that woke the giant. As many could consider, Hitler's greatest folly, but arguably, an inevitablity under the Third Reich.
The Invasion of Poland started the WWII.
Pearl Harbor got the US into it.
The D-Day begins the liberation of France and the defeat of Germany in the Western Front.
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki meant the end of the WWII.
The Battle of Stalingrad was the worst defeat of Germany in the Eastern front.
But Operation Barbarossa is IMO the most significant episode of WWII, since Hitler decided to fight against Russia instead fighting 100% in the Western Front and that's why Hitler lost the war himself.
Pearl Harbor got the US into it.
The D-Day begins the liberation of France and the defeat of Germany in the Western Front.
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki meant the end of the WWII.
The Battle of Stalingrad was the worst defeat of Germany in the Eastern front.
But Operation Barbarossa is IMO the most significant episode of WWII, since Hitler decided to fight against Russia instead fighting 100% in the Western Front and that's why Hitler lost the war himself.
There is no "most significant" event.
Treaty of Versailles that ended WW1 is the most significant event of WW2
Last edited by lowing (2006-12-12 04:15:04)
Market Garden !!!!!!!!!!! FFS!!
I'd say the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was the most significant thing to happen ever.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
There is no "most significant" event.
imo, it caused WWI and WWII.
as i have said before: stalingrad was NOT the decisive battle of ww2 (although it had great psychological effects on both sides). there is no decisive battle in ww2. operation barbarossa in general was the decisive event in ww2 (regarding europe). if hitler hadn't broken the peace treaty with stalin, nazi germany would have ruled whole continental-europe, probably also britain. so, fortunately, the austrian dictator made that mistake!spray_and_pray wrote:
Stalingrad (more people died in it then in any other battle and it was the turning point in the war)
Kursk
July 4 - 17, 1943
Largest tank battle in History, truly turned the tide in the east. Came a little bit after Stalingrad.
And, as an aside, it was the combat debut of the "Panther", quite possibly my favourite piece of military equipment of all time.
July 4 - 17, 1943
Largest tank battle in History, truly turned the tide in the east. Came a little bit after Stalingrad.
And, as an aside, it was the combat debut of the "Panther", quite possibly my favourite piece of military equipment of all time.
Market garden was not all the decisive or significant. Large, yes. Did it change the course of the war? No, not at all.Tjasso wrote:
Market Garden !!!!!!!!!!! FFS!!
Win.lowing wrote:
Treaty of Versailles that ended WW1 is the most significant event of WW2
this was just the last straw that broke the camel's back. without that assassination, there would have been war even so between austria and serbia/russia. ww1 has lots of reasons (imperialism, militarism, nationalism etc.). but i agree that ww1 and the treaty of versailles caused ww2. without that, hitler and the nazis wouldn't have been possible!Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
I'd say the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was the most significant thing to happen ever.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
There is no "most significant" event.
imo, it caused WWI and WWII.
Spot on.Bertster7 wrote:
1. Operation Barbarossa
2. Battle of Britain
3. D-Day
Were it not for Operation Barbarossa I think Hitler would have won the war in Europe.
If the Battle of Britain had not been won by the British then Operation Sea Lion would have succeeded, if that had succeeded D-Day would never have happened.
Hence the significancecl4u53w1t2 wrote:
this was just the last straw that broke the camel's back. without that assassination, there would have been war even so between austria and serbia/russia. ww1 has lots of reasons (imperialism, militarism, nationalism etc.). but i agree that ww1 and the treaty of versailles caused ww2. without that, hitler and the nazis wouldn't have been possible!Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
I'd say the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was the most significant thing to happen ever.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
There is no "most significant" event.
imo, it caused WWI and WWII.
Why does he win? Does he have more sex than you do? .........juniorVilham wrote:
Spot on.Bertster7 wrote:
1. Operation Barbarossa
2. Battle of Britain
3. D-Day
Were it not for Operation Barbarossa I think Hitler would have won the war in Europe.
If the Battle of Britain had not been won by the British then Operation Sea Lion would have succeeded, if that had succeeded D-Day would never have happened.
Last edited by lowing (2006-12-12 19:56:22)
And I am saying that Pearl Harbor gave the US incentive to join WWII. Without the US the war could have ended a lot more differently than it did. So, by my view:PBAsydney wrote:
Oh I'm sorry, but we are talking about WWII in whole, not just the US participation.Miller wrote:
I said Pearl Harbor. If the japs hadn't hit there, the US wouldn't have entered the war for a long time.
And therefore the outcome could have been catastrophic for Europe as a whole.I wrote:
Pearl Harbor, if the Japanese hadn't hit there, the US wouldn't have entered the war for a long time.
I hate it when people think I don't know what the topic is about, and it usually has something to do with them knowing my age...
Last edited by Miller (2006-12-12 20:07:03)
1. Stalingrad
2. D-Day
3. Battle of Midway Island
There is no, most signifigant, but there are a few more signifigant events.
The above are the turning points, were the Allies began to kick Axis ass.
2. D-Day
3. Battle of Midway Island
There is no, most signifigant, but there are a few more signifigant events.
The above are the turning points, were the Allies began to kick Axis ass.
Last edited by Plisken (2006-12-12 20:05:45)
lol funny isn't it, one fucking assasination caused all this. Wonder how things would be if WW1/2 didn't take place...Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
I'd say the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was the most significant thing to happen ever.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
There is no "most significant" event.
imo, it caused WWI and WWII.
Everyone would die from a nuclear holocaust. Russia would still be developing nuclear arms. Same war, different weapons imo.Mekstizzle wrote:
lol funny isn't it, one fucking assasination caused all this. Wonder how things would be if WW1/2 didn't take place...Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
I'd say the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was the most significant thing to happen ever.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
There is no "most significant" event.
imo, it caused WWI and WWII.
