Most Signifigant WWI Battle?

what do you think the most signifigant battle in World War I was? Being Canadian, I think that it might have been the Battle of Vimy Ridge (Apr. 9 - Apr.12th, 1917.)

My vote would go to the battle of the Marne in 1914.  This determined that the war would be a war of attrition, and not of decisive moves like 1870.

Gallipoli, If Turkey fell in 1915 it would have simply doomed the German war effort and led to the early end of the war. Also the failure of the Schliefflen plan was essential after the violent though unsuccessful Belgian defense and the victory at the Marne front in 1914 determined the course of the war.

Edited by Al Jassas - 21-Feb-2008 at 21:05

Verdun if German won there then they would won the war.

I go with First Battle of the Marne, is the crucial fight for understand the evolution of the war.

Originally posted by Challenger2 ... Tannenburg also qualifies, as winning this battle convinced the Germans they could win in the East against Russia and they devoted resources in that direction that might have been better employed in the West.

I've seen this sort of 'theory' stated previously.  However, doesn't the historical outcome, i.e. Russia forced out of the war but not France, tend to contradict the claim?

In the east a single German army annihilated one Russian army and mauled a second, forcing it to retreat.  In the meanwhile the other 7 German armies at the start failed to defeat France.  After the 'Race to the Channel' extended the line in the west to the ocean, the Germans launched an offensive in the east in 1915 which inflicted a serious defeat on the Russians and captured a huge chunk of territory.   In 1916 the Germans switched back to the west and suffered massive losses at Verdun.  In 1917 they attacked in the east again, effectively knocking Russia out of the war - negotiations starting in Dec. 1917 and a brief resumption of 'hostilities' early in 1918 resulting in the 'surrender' being signed in March 1918.  Once again in 1918 the Germans switch back to the west and once again they fail. 

So, what exactly is the 'better use'  that the German forces allocated to the east might have been put to in order to achieve a better result?  They would have needed to form a 'line' in the east regardless.  Furthermore, the results achieved by the Russians against the Austro-Hungarians indicates that the Germans could not have afforded to 'abandon' their allies, leaving them to face the Russians 'alone'.  The problem was that the defense had the technological advantage, especially early in the war and the western front offered a relatively limited 'frontage'.  At some point an increase in the 'density' of the attackers advancing into machinegun and defensive artillery fire only increases the attackers' losses and doesn't significantly increase the chances of 'breaking' the defense. 

It appears as though 'concentrating' on the west and only allocating minimal forces to defend in the east both fails to defeat France and allows the Russians to knock A-H out of the war.  Not really a superior allocation of forces, at least not from the German perspective.

Cambrai 1917; first tank breakthrough in modern warfare. If the reserves were close enough to exploit, the war would have been over there and then.  

If the Hun had won a decisive victory at Jutland, they would have won the war.

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 Originally posted by Paul If the Hun had won a decisive victory at Jutland, they would have won the war.   How do you figure that?    The war was overwhelmingly a land war.  The sea was just a subsidiary front for Germany, and they never had the naval capacity to defeat Britain.  Had Germany won at Jutland, they still would have been poorly positioned to make anything of that, and would have continued to be a "fleet-in-being."  Those fleets are always indicative of the weaker power.   Decisive victories are those which decide wars.  Jutland decided little or nothing.    It was interesting though from the POV of technology and the nature of sea power.  Sea power is the preserve of maritime powers, not continental powers.  Germany would have been better off redirecting all that naval expenditure to the army.

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 Confidence is fine if you have the means.  Germany never had sufficient means.  Their ultimate naval weapon was unrestricted submarine warfare, which brought the US into the war against them resulting in more overwhelming naval power against them.    Some fluke at Jutland that might have resulted in a British setback may (MAY) have brought the US into the war sooner, although 1916 was an election year.