Quote:
|
Originally Posted by beardo How can you think that the largest amphibous assault in history, opening up another flank, and forcing the germans to retreat again wasnt a decisive battle |
I am not going to argue that Overlord was not decisive. It was. But was it AS decisive as Moscow, Stalingrad or Kursk?? No, it absolutely wasn't!! Germany was already losing the war and steadily retreating on the Eastern Front. If Overlord had never even happened (whether Joe Stalin demanded it or not), would Germany have won? No, they would not. At the moment D-day occurred, nothing short of an act of God was going to change one simple fact: The Germans were already losing. They did not have the capability of repelling the Soviet Red Army. So what did Overlord and D-Day accomplish? 1.) It shortened the process of completely defeating the Germans. 2.) It preserved Continental Europe from all becoming part of the USSR's Communist Empire.
By the way, I voted Moscow for the following reasons: Firstly, without stopping the Germans from taking Moscow, neither Kursk nor Stalingrad could have ever been won by the Soviets. Also, because they stopped the Germans, the largest center of manufacturing and production in the entire USSR (Moscow/Gorky region) remained under Soviet control.
I've always favored the opinion that Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk all combined as decisively turning the tide of the war in Europe. Moscow was the first large-scale victory. Stalingrad was the second gigantic victory, and destroyed an entire German Army. Kursk was the third grand slam win and spelled the end of Germany's ability to attack. From Kursk on, it was a slow march backwards all the way to Berlin. None of them is truly greater than the other and all were crucial.