Most important ww2 battle?

mikerbatzel,


Sorry, my post should have been addressed to Stug in post #41:-


"but if uk had fallen then ussr probably would as well"



John.

 

Exactly, sorry I may have misunderstood you. Stalin of course knew the German's anti-communist policies but could not imagine Hitler attacking him at the time that he did.

 

How can battle of Moscow or stalgrade be the most important battle?? I do knowledge that russians battle fields were important but with germany fighting on to fronts caused the germans being much weaker than before.

The two fronts was caused by the battle of Briton and by briton defeating the lufftwaffe! that lead to disadvantage the germans by alot of %.

Briton had fallen,germany would only be on one front and that is the Russian front and the germans would be much more powerful.

Yet again,briton is left out!

 

nvm

 

............nice save,,,,,,,,lol

 

No responce,i am taking it you have no come back and i am right!

 

Stalingrad has the be the most important battle. The Germans loose nearly an entire army and then some. It truly marked a clear turning point on the Eastern front. Stalingrad marked the farthest extent of the Axis reach in Russia and the Axis defeat there resulted in them being pushed back to Berlin. After Stalingrad the Axis won no MAJOR/SIGNIFIGANT battles besides the operations of Manstein around and including Kharkov from Feb-Mar 1943.

A quote from somebody/some book/idk where I just remember it...

"Stalingrad garanteed that the Germans would not win the war, Kursk guaranteed they would lose it."

 

You know exactly what I think. And I don't think it's right.

 

The problem with Stalingrad is the offensive of which it was a part was already stopped.

I'm not sure there can be a most important battle. To even have a hope of doing so we'd have to agree on some set of critieria. However if I had to name one I'd probably say the battle of Moscow. In order for the Germans to succeed they have to defeat the Soviets and they were stopped at Moscow. Now whether or not they had a chance of doing so even if they succeeded there is another question.

 

Not really,i can't read you're mind but i am guessing you don't agree with my answer!

 

You and I know that it's not about that.

 

Please............. get over it!

 

It's not right to deceive good people here in this way.

 

PM me and tell me you're problem! don't bring problems on to the public forums! It's unprofessinal looking for the forum to guest.

 

Don't falsely posture or pretend to not know. I have accumulated multiple reasons to prove my inference and I'm almost completely sure now. But I'm not bringing problems here so that is why I erased my post.

I'm putting you back on ignore now so watching the deception occur everyday towards posters here will no longer bother me.

I want to apologize to all for responding to him and derailing this thread for a little.

 

Actually i am a HER! please address me as a her,you're i'll call you a her! up to you!

 

Do not underestimate me. Anyway, I'm not bothering your act anymore. I shall leave it to others and "in time". You're on my ignore list now and I intend for it to continue indefinitely.

Once again, I want to apologize to all for responding and derailing this thread for a little. I will take my leave, as far as this thread and this issue goes.

edit: No, I'm not pming. It has ended here.

 

I think both of you need to settle down or take it to the PM system so this thread can continue to a civil discussion.

 

I understand your point about Stalingrad, however I feel the phycological aspect, the losses the Germans took, and the battles shortly after it, such as kursk, which it led to outweigh that. Also if the Germans managed to capture stalingrad in November 1942 sometime it is very possible they could have stabalized the Volga front and divert troops and supplies to the Caucus.

As for Moscow, your point is one that many people make, however IMHO i tend to disagree with it. I feel that the lose of Moscow is not as important as some people make it.

First of all, Germany could never have fully conqured Russia. It is possible with all other Allies out of the war they could have settled for a peace treaty giving them some of Russia. Germany lacked the manpower and industrial power needed to defeat the Soviet Union. And this was very clear by the time the battle of Moscow was being fought. The logistics of the entire operation were just terrible. The men lacked clothing, food, amunition, food. Men were freezing to death, men were starving to death. The supply lines were streched to their limits almost, as each army group had one train line to support them. This is partly due to the fact that the Russian tracks were different than the German.

Second, the Russians had already withdrew all their industry behind the Urals, they had moved all the high political figures out of the city, (Stalin was prepared to depart in an armored train if he needed), they had already picked a city to act as the capital if Moscow fell. They had also rigged the city with bombs and was prepared to leave a gurrilla fighting group to make any German movements through Moscow quite difficult. Based on this IMO i dont think that Moscow means the fall of Russia.

Thridly, the winter offensive the Soviets launched on December 5, 1941 would probably still have happened, it might have been delayed a month or so, but if it was succesful (as it was when lauched dec 5) it could probably drove the Germand out of Moscow.