More Important Battle

i think that kursk was the most effective one against the germans, considerig that it weakened the german army to the point where they were incapable of maintinging a huge attack in the east until Germany had already surrendered.

 

I am puzzled over this thread. It doesn't matter where the battle was. From '42 onwards the Red Army was coming to grips with the German Wehrmacht. The endresult would have been the same no matter where they fought. So I'd say that the most important battle was sorting out the clutter in STAVKA.

 

Simplifying a lot, consider: in 1941 the Germans attacked in the North, Centre and South. In 1942 they attacked in the South direction only. 1n 1943 they attacked to lop off a salient. Seems to me they were weakened enough already.

You 'orrible little man!

 

Leningrad, unlike Stalingrad, was one of the original targets for Germany. Plans for the capture of this city were drawn up before Barbarossa.

Leningrad was Russia's second largest city, main port, and a cultural capital. It housed Russia's second largest population and surpassed Stalingrad in industrial might. The fall of Leningrad would have been far more devestating on the Russian morale then Stalingrad.

Not to mention that Germany had a much larger garrison and investment in Leningrad. Capturing this vital city would have freed up hundreds of thousands of men and equipment which were simply stuck there for 3 years and a drain on Germany.

 

My dear friend I was told by our mutual friend the RR that there was some... dissens among the members. Thankfully easily sorted out.

 

I say Moscow for these reasons.

Hitler had failed to take Moscow and just dismissed the fact Blitzkrieg was over. In a classic move by Hitler; he launches another great offensive in the south and learns nothing from the battle of Moscow. Only to do it all over again at Stalingrad by wasting a veteran army.

But as this thread is only dealing with Leningrad & Stalingrad there is only one that is Stalingrad.