Strategically Pointless Battles of the First and Second World War?

Wasn't sure whether to post this in post-1900 or PolitiChat, but here we go. Basically battles pointless not necessarily in human lives lost (Stalingrad lost a hell of a lot of lives but made a huge difference) but that they didn't ultimately have much of an effect on either war and could have been avoided without much of a difference in terms of war progression. So, what do you all think?
 
Arguably, the Battle over Britain. Hitler made the moronic decision of ordering the Luftwaffe to bombard civilian targets, determined that British morale would crumble. This backfired, and the Brits, with their famous upper lips,only gained more reason to hate the Germans, and retained much of their aviation facilities.
 
The Battle of Passchendaele, it had ridiculous casualties for the ground gained, and the area had little strategic relevance anyway.
 
Arguably, the Battle over Britain. Hitler made the moronic decision of ordering the Luftwaffe to bombard civilian targets, determined that British morale would crumble. This backfired, and the Brits, with their famous upper lips,only gained more reason to hate the Germans, and retained much of their aviation facilities.
I was under the, I suppose possibly false, impression that the Battle of Britain was somewhat successful in its early stages when they attacked RAF airfields and facilities but failed when they switched to cities?
 
I was under the, I suppose possibly false, impression that the Battle of Britain was somewhat successful in its early stages when they attacked RAF airfields and facilities but failed when they switched to cities?

I think that's a fair description, although given the loss ratios, rates and shortage of time available in the airfield/radar stage it's not at all clear that the Luftwaffe was being "successful" in the early stage either. But I wouldn't call it pointless either - Germany needed to end the war in summer 1940, so trying to force the UK to terms was good strategy, even if it failed.
 
Last edited:
I was under the, I suppose possibly false, impression that the Battle of Britain was somewhat successful in its early stages when they attacked RAF airfields and facilities but failed when they switched to cities?
Indeed it was, although Hitler's involvement largely negated any benefits the Luftwaffe might have achieved in the long run.
 

Deleted member 1487

The Battle of Passchendaele, it had ridiculous casualties for the ground gained, and the area had little strategic relevance anyway.
I find it hard to agree given that the battle was both to tie down the Germans at a time when the French were in mutiny, Russia falling apart, and it was to break through to the coast and stop the Uboats. It didn't achieve the objective of stopping the Uboats, but it did bind the Germans and bring their morale down to the lowest ebb of the war yet and ground down their manpower reserves, while Britain still had ample ones. The problem then came out of politics when the British government held back reserves to keep GHQ from launching another bloody offensive, which backfired when the Germans launched their last major offensives of the war.
 

Deleted member 1487

I was under the, I suppose possibly false, impression that the Battle of Britain was somewhat successful in its early stages when they attacked RAF airfields and facilities but failed when they switched to cities?
Not really. Recent scholarship has shown that the offensive was a strategic mess from the beginning and always doomed to failure despite the early tactical victories in July. The switch to cities was part of the general failure of the intelligence that convinced Hitler that the RAF fighter reserves were nearly exhausted and it was time to draw the last ones into a final battle, which bombing London would do. Instead the RAF had actualy increased in numbers over the period the Germans were bombing airfields (though the wrong ones in many cases and generally were ineffective in doing so to strategic effect). Stephen Bungay in "Most Dangerous Enemy" does a great job working with primary sources to show that the Brits were never in danger of losing given the muddled strategy the Luftwaffe/Goering/Hitler used IOTL. He proposed another much more effective one that is generally agreed would have worked, but much of that required hindsight or at least a better understanding of the enemy they faced and much more professionalism than the Luftwaffe displayed IOTL.
 
The assaults during the last day of the First World War were IMO completely pointless and unnecessary.
Agreed. Even when it was guaranteed that the Germans would withdraw once the armistice is in effect, the Entente simply refused to swallow their pride and wait it out. Many ended up dying retaking ground that would be handed over without a fight anyway, simply for the commanders to prove that they can.
 

Archibald

Banned
Most of WWI was pointless waste of millions of lives. At least WWII avoided trench warfare (although it had its share of different horrors, for sure)
 

ben0628

Banned
Gallipolli of course, churchills folly

Disagree. Personally I feel a naval only strategy could have worked. Running the straits, even with all the obstacles in it, was possible in my opinion. What made Gallipoli a folly, was including the army in it (which I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think Churchill wanted thay).

Most of WWI was pointless waste of millions of lives. At least WWII avoided trench warfare (although it had its share of different horrors, for sure)

I personally think the Western front was where the only pointless fighting was taking place, and that's only in 1915, 1916 and 1917 (1914 and 1918 campaigns were important on the W front)

The Eastern front and middle East were strategically important and we're not stalemates.

As for the Op's question, here is my answer:

WW1: First Somme Offensive
WW2: Kursk
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Many Australians considered the late invasions of Borneo to have been rather pointless, since Japan was about to surrender anyway. Also, the attacks on the Germans holding the Courland pocket on the Eastern Front seem to have had little point, since minor pinning attacks could have kept them where they were just fine.

In the First World War, were there any battles that weren't pointless?
 

ben0628

Banned
Many Australians considered the late invasions of Borneo to have been rather pointless, since Japan was about to surrender anyway. Also, the attacks on the Germans holding the Courland pocket on the Eastern Front seem to have had little point, since minor pinning attacks could have kept them where they were just fine.

In the First World War, were there any battles that weren't pointless?

Arguably most battles were important. People focus on the Western Front too much and think that the whole war is nothing but one big stalemate.

There is nothing pointless about the Eastern front. Russia losing almost let the Germans win.

The Ottomans were defeated by capturing the middle East and by threatening Constantinople by invading Bulgaria in 1918.

The colonial wars in Africa were important because those damn stubborn Germans in Tanzania literally tied down over a hundred thousand British troops (including colonial forces).

The naval war was important. British blockade helped defeat Germany while German usw brought the US in.

Now as for the Western front, what you must realize is that politically, the Entente governments were under pressure to win the war. Sitting on their asses doing nothing in France would have been unacceptable. Offensives on the Western front were inevitable. And one might argue that killing millions of Germans on the Western front is a strategic victory which makes said battles not pointless.
 
Top