Do you agree or disagree with this dude, and if not what do you think were the most important battles?
On a related note, I also believe that WWII as a whole didn't really have a strictly decisive singular set of engagements
This is a matter of perception, and thuis it is personal. It is also semantics: battle, campaign, strategic or tactical victory, you can split and/or lump as much as you like: it will take pretty long before it gets ridiculous.
OK, my opinion:
1) The Battle of Sedan: agreed, esp with Fall of France as signpost event for Axis domination over Europe.
2) The Malaya-Singapore Campaign: somewhat agreed, it was a major factor in ending colonial empires as a whole, not just the British. But it had more meaning for the postwar period than for the war itself.
3) The First Battle of Smolensk: agreed, identical to "start of Operation Barbarossa", which is a classic pivotal point in the war, recognised by many historians.
4) The Battle of Crete: disagreed, only the use/disuse of paratroopers was decided here, but their influence on the overall war was minimal. The Soviets next to never used them, and still they contributed the most in European victory.
5) Operation Overlord: agreed. Without Overlord, a longer war and no American influence in postwar Europe.
6) The Battle of Beda Fomm: disagreed. There is only one decisive battle in Africa and that is of course El Alamein.
7) The Battle of the Ruhr Pocket: disagreed. After Bulge the Germans were already incapable of mounting anything offensive. Ruhr was a large mopping up, not a "decisive" battle.
8) The Battle of Okinawa: disagreed. This battle was a decisive element in
the explanation ofthe decision to drop the atomic bombs. Many people keep forgetting that both Eisenhower and Marshall told Truman that dropping the bombs was not necessary in any military way. Truman wanted to do it to see what the bomb could do (hence there were two bombs dropped, of different types), and to show Stalin what he was capable of. The fact that Japan might end the war sooner was nice, but not the main cause. I agree in the sense that this was the last major battle, but not anyhthing decisive again. Guadalcanal was way more decisive, or Midway.
9) Operation Solstice: disagreed. Something isn't decisive when it only delays something, with the end result being the same.
10) The Battle of Illomantsi: agreed and disagreed. Agreed on Finland's part. What I know about it, is that it was quite important for Finland's future, but overall in the entire war, minor siginificance.
I get the impression that this guy is anti Soviets, as he calls them thugs and their ideology cartoonish, only mentions the way they lost many lives, but dismisses their results totally. I'm not saying the Red Army didn't know any thugs or that communism is cool and all, but to each his own. The USA has also an ideology, and the people believing in that aren't thugs either, right?
Also, Stalingrad should be in any type of list composed just like this one. "Forgetting" that one is very biased, or simply stupid. Same goes for mentioning Ruhr but dismissing Berlin.
So, my list, in no particular order (well, it turns out to be somewhat chronological):
Fall Weiss, Fall of France, Battle of Britain, Operation Barbarossa, El Alamein, Stalingrad, Midway, Guadalcanal, Battle of the Bulge, Battle of Berlin.