Most Successful Campaign of WW2

[Jon Jordan]

What is your opinion on the all-time most successful campaign of World War II?

[Boonierat]

The Campaign of France 1940 qualifies of course. Bagration 1944, the Central Pacific Campaign 1944-45 and Ike's 'Crusade in Europe' would also be strong contenders.

[The Purist]

Originally Posted by Boonierat

The Campaign of France 1940 qualifies of course. Bagration 1944, the Central Pacific Campaign 1944-45 and Ike's 'Crusade in Europe' would also be strong contenders.

I would have to go with the 1940 campaign that defeated France as well. Without the defeat of France there is likely no Italian entry into the war and no campaign in Africa, the Balkans and the Med. There would also be no invasion of Russia which would most likely have had a an effect on the Japanese in Asia (would the Japanese risk war with the US, Britain and the CW plus the USSR? ) .

Without the defeat of France there likely would not have been a second world war and the conflict would have remained very local.

[Achtung Baby]

from the list provided, the German conquest of France (1940) for me.

[tigerivan]

Operation barbarossa because of the terrain gained and the enormous losses inflicted.

[Half Pint]

1940 France, handsdown.

[T. A. Gardner]

The US drive across the Pacific.

[The Purist]

Originally Posted by tigerivan

Operation barbarossa because of the terrain gained and the enormous losses inflicted.

Hmmmm,....I would suggest Barbarossa was a colossal failure. Terrain gained and losses inflicted mean little if you fail to attain your objective (defeat the USSR).

[tigerivan]

Originally Posted by The Purist

Hmmmm,....I would suggest Barbarossa was a colossal failure. Terrain gained and losses inflicted mean little if you fail to attain your objective (defeat the USSR).

It was absolutely not a failure.A lot was achieved.The USSR was just much bigger than France and that made the difference.

[Legate]

Originally Posted by The Purist

I would have to go with the 1940 campaign that defeated France as well. Without the defeat of France there is likely no Italian entry into the war and no campaign in Africa, the Balkans and the Med. There would also be no invasion of Russia which would most likely have had a an effect on the Japanese in Asia (would the Japanese risk war with the US, Britain and the CW plus the USSR? ) .

Without the defeat of France there likely would not have been a second world war and the conflict would have remained very local.

I agree. If France had not fallen,the war would have ended sooner. I wonder,assuming the attack on France failed,would Hitler be able to come to peace with Britain and France?

[Half Pint]

Originally Posted by Legate

I agree. If France had not fallen,the war would have ended sooner. I wonder,assuming the attack on France failed,would Hitler be able to come to peace with Britain and France?

YES


FOR AWHILE.

[iron]

From those available I would have picked (as did most others) the "Fall Gelb" phase of the Wehrmacht's western campaign.

My "other" choice would be the Wallies effort in waging (and eventually winning) the "Battle of the Atlantic". Were such an effort not prosecuted, the likelihood of Western Europe falling under eventual Soviet domination goes up exponentially; indeed, the course of world history (as we now know it) might be radically different...

Once the "Russian Bear" was fully awakened nothing Germany could hope to muster would stop it...regardless of whether the Russian's had Spam, Studebakers, copper wire and 100/130 Avgas (or didn't)...

The Americans would get to England (one way or another); doing this within a sufficient time frame (to get ashore in France, in the summer of 1944) was not a foregone conclusion back in 1942, when the U-Boat's were most effective.

Failure to break the back of the Befelshaber der Unterseeboote in the spring of '43 would have had very nasty consequences for the future of the western world...

Cheers, Ron

[Exorcist]

TA Gardner was close, and the US drive across the Pacific did not meet with any serious reversal... altho we came close at Guadalcanal, Leyte Gulf and Okinowa.

But, why did we have it so good? I give much credit to the US Submarine offensive- it was the Battle of the Atlantic in reverse, and We won.

The most CRUCIAL campaighn of the war had to be the Battle fo the Atlantic.

More men were killed in that campaign than died in all the other naval battles in all the ohter wars for the last 500 years, combined, for a total of 32,000 U-boat crewmen and well over 50,000 Aliied sailors and airmen.

I have siad that before, also- teh Russian war effort would have collapsed without Western aid. German troops on some areas complained that the men they were fighting were not Russian until you got down to the skin.

What losses were involved, materialy?
In the first nine months of the war, 2.3 million tons of ships (not counting cargos) were lost to just a handful of U-boats.
The second half of 1940- 2.5 million tons.
Early 1941- 2.9 million
Later 1941- 1.4 million
Early 1942- 4.1 million TONS... 1,000 ships
later 1942- 3.6 million
The first half of 1943 saw over FIVE million tons sunk.
Historians do not equivocate, they state point-blank that if the destruction had continued at that rate, the Allies would have lost the war.
Period.

Onlu by making the safetly of the convoys the highest priority did the Western Allies defeat the U-boat threat.

[F4UCorsair]

France. This campaign is the very reason that the Wehrmacht is considered such a fabulously efficient army. As others have said, without it none to the other conquests occur.

[Freightshaker]

Tough choice between France 1940 and The Destruction of Army Group Center. I went with Bagration.