Most decisive European battle of WWII??

Ah I see. Well personally I am more or less the same. I find the second half of the Soviet/German war as my speciality, from the end of Stalingrad onwards, or I should say from the Germans retaking Kharkov in Feb/ March 1943 and onwards. That whole 2 year period up to Berlin is the most interesting to me. As it turns out it also coincides with the new generation of German armour appearing.

I think if I had to pick an even more precise period I would go for the first half of 1944 with the winter/ spring battles in southern Russia/Ukraine as the most fascinating time span, particularly from an armoured warfare point of view. Armour was the main focus here as the battles were of a mobile nature with moving pockets and local German counterattacks/relief attempts etc. Bad weather ruled out much air engagement and even infantry was more or less secondary to the role the armour played. The Tigers and Panthers excelled in these duels over wide open terrain. For example Schwere Panzer Regiment Bake (a special unit formed for two months in Jan and Feb 1944 with a mixture of 20 Tiger Is and 25 Panthers) destroyed 267 Soviet tanks in 5 days (for the loss of 1 Tiger and 3 Panthers) attacking near the Balabanowka area in Jan 1944. Late winter/ spring 1944 was also a time when the T34/85 and the IS series started appearing on the battlefield. A most interesting time period to me.

 

Here too, I do not know much about the Eastern Front battles after Kursk. Its about the time the Western Allies start making their moves, so I always tend to focus on them rather than the massive campaign in Eastern Europe.

Yes, all the good stuff came out around then.

Wow!

 

Certainly this period is one of the most interesting of the war, and maybe of the history of armed conflict for it s a pure example of mobile war. Even more so than operations like Fall Blau, Fall Gelb or Barbarossa (no, these things are not in chronological order). Furthermore it was just as decisive in its sheer scale as the entire Western front.

My specialty, as I said before, is the North-West Europe campaign; the most interesting part of the war for me is the Ardennes offensive. A phenomenal last kick for a dying empire, its impact was amazing and the vigour with which it was executed was awe-inspiring if you consider that it simply could not succeed.

 

For heaven's sake, Roel, no one said that the Western battles matched the Eastern ones in size and scope. I just thought it would be nice if we could leave the steppes of Russia for a little bit and see what folks thought about the battles in other theaters.

 

I would like to note that any battle, on whatever front, was of utmost importance to those participating in them. I would also not want to be the one to tell one of those veterans that the battle they fought in (and were perhaps wounded in) was somehow "unimportant". Those who fought to take Monte Cassino showed as much bravery, BTW, as those who took on the panzers at Kursk. I know that no one has suggested anything else, but I feel it's necessary to remember this and keep a little perspective in our discussions.

 

Hear Hear.

As I have pointed out before, everyone who took part is important, from the free europeans to the americans and russians, the British commonwealth and especially the various resistance movements. The most brave i believe were the resistance movements, not taking away from the soldiers anything. Soldiers appreciate they maybe captured, mabe tortured maybe just in a POW camp, however, resistance fighters anything and everythig is fair game.

A good film is Soldier of Orange, it is a very objective view of the Netherlands and very thought prevoking.

 

You are quite right. I wasn't suggesting otherwise of course. I didn't say or mean that Monte Cassino was totally unimportant. All I meant was that if you are interested in military history and especially WW2 then the likes of battles such as Monte Cassino, Anzio etc are VERY much well known, talked about, celebrated and documented far more so than other more crucial and important battles. They get FAR more of the limelight than many other battles in my honest opinion when I don't see why.

Just because these eastern front battles I was refering to did not include us western Allies doesn't mean the participants were unimportant and that we should ignore them, which is what most of us westerners seem to do, even many WW2 historians. They are totally unknown to 99% of us. Worse, even those with an interest in WW2 just don't care about the eastern front and have no intention of finding out more. The point I made is that hardly anybody here would have even heard of them and I find that frustrating, especially considering we ALL have an interest in WW2. I am going to upset a lot of people here but I find the western front gets way too much credit and coverage. But that's just my own personal opinion. I feel the eastern front should get more credit. You wouldn't even know the Soviets were even in the war if you listened to all the D-Day celebrations and how that battle was the 'beginning of the end' for Nazi Germany and the 'turning point'. I despaired at some points while watching the coverage.:roll:

 

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not solely interested in the eastern front. I also have a particular fascination for the Ardennes and the battle for Normandy (particularly after the actual invasion). Both those battles are as interesting as any fought on the eastern front.

 

Why, of course this one gets my "Hear hear" of the day. By the way, GP, I don't think it is appropriate to choose the bravest from all those veterans who did their jobs and all those resistance fighters who helped them and their people. Picking one group, calling them the most courageous of all, means telling the others they could have done better. In my book this would be disrespectful. They all deserve the respect that James here grants them.

And don't listen to him, Soldier of Orange is a Dutch movie. Avoid Dutch movies. Always.

For all the rest, I agree with Lyndon.

 

I never said they could do better, but the consequences of resistance fighters was more dire and more far reaching if caught. A soldier knows what to expect if caught, freedom fighter does too. I would rather be a soldier, even behind enemy lines in my own uniform.

That is the point I was trying to make.

Soldier of Orange gives (IMHO) an unbiased view of Holland during the war. From all points of view.

 

But then on the Eastern front soldiers faced almost certain death when captured, just like resistance fighters. This is the reason why fighting was so bitter in the East; no one wanted to surrender, only if there was no alternative. It wasn't just Hitler calling on all soldiers to die fighting...

 

Sorry i should have clarified, I was talking about the western front, i know the eastern front was evil, and the germans looked upon the western front as a holiday.

 

Exactly, there was little of the 'dying for the Fatherland or the Nazi cause' stuff that we hear so much about. If you read accounts of ordinary Germans soldiers you'll find that first and foremost like troops everywhere they are fighting just to stay alive. Then they are fighting for their comrades, then their units etc etc. I don't think the average German soldier gave a damn what Hitler screamed about the fight against Bolshevism, especially after the opening period or so when it was no longer just volunteers.

Only really in the final stages of the war were Germans fanatically defending their own civilian population from the advancing Red Army and dying for their country.

 

It should be noted that Hitler ordered that any British commandoes captured by German forces were to be executed, regardless of whether or not they were in their proper uniform at the time. Being a duly enlisted soldier in a recognized army doesn't always help.

 

Yes that's true and I also recently saw on television that in some cases allied bomber crews were lynched by german civilians while german soldiers stood along and did nothing.

 

Doesn't always help.. Yes you are right, however, if I was in the resistance and caught I would welcome being executed. I know this can go on 'well some soldiers were tortured or used for experiments etc'. The main point is on the whole in uniform you are caught given a kicking and locked up, resistance are tortured, their families and villages shot up, 100's of people shot/tortured etc.

I know where my bread is buttered.

 

Do not forget the Japanese and Germans soldiers as well, they fought for their countrys no less then the Allied soldiers.

 

Letting civilians get thier revenge on bomber crews whips them into a fervor, mob psychcology takes over, and then, all that mob needs is a leader. With the right, extremely charismatic, clever leader (eg Hitler) they will do whatever you want them too.

 

Some also fought for the allies too, but i haven't listed all countries.

 

Battle of Britain?

In his book 'The Most Dangerous Enemy - A History of the Battle of Britain' Stephen Bungay mentions that the Russians asked this same question the German Generals after the war - they were expecting Stalingrad to be the answer and were surprised (and I think a little put out) when they were told the Battle of Britain.