Most decisive battle in WW2? - Page 27




View Poll Results :Most decisive battle in WW2?
Battle of Stalingrad 34 33.33%
Battle of Kursk (Operation Citadel) 15 14.71%
Battle of Moscow 10 9.80%
Battle of Leningrad 0 0%
Battle of El Alamein 3 2.94%
Operation Overlord (Battle of Normandy) 17 16.67%
Battle of Midway 11 10.78%
Other 12 11.76%
Voters: 102. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
 
March 4th, 2011  
AVON
 

Topic: Re: Most decisive battle in WW2?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Korean Seaboy
Yes, I agree that Midway was one of the most decisive battles in WWII, but I still stand firmly on my position that Moscow was the most decisive.
I can't disagree with that. To the Soviets, the war was something that was fought on a daily basis. To the western allies, many days or weeks had no significant ground combat The Soviet spy Richard Sorge (NOTE) found out the Japanese only planned a limited incursion into the Soviet Union. When Stalin was sure Sorge's information was valid, many Soviet Army divisions were transferred from being prepared to fight the Japanese on the eastern front to the western front against Germany.
NOTE;
Richard Sorge was the Soviet spy in Tokyo who found out in October of 1941, that the Japanese planned to attack "Pearl Harbor" (by name) in the first week of December! The information was passed to Moscow which forwarded it to Washington!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Korean Seaboy
It was the turning point of the war, when Soviet forces finally stopped the once invincible German war machine
Yes, after the Battle for Moscow all major battle were won by the Soviet Union.

I have never come across any information on what the Soviet military planned to do concerning the invasion of Japan beyond the Kuril Islands.
March 12th, 2011  
VikingHaaG
 

All were inportant battles, no doubt about that.

Wonder why no one votes leningrad frankly. They stopped the german advance in the northern front. I think they were sieged for over a year if memory isn't failing me.

Anyway i voted for other, namely the battle of britain. A handfull of pilots defended the only non german-occupated land. Without england = no D-Day and no second front to draw forces away from russian front.
March 12th, 2011  
MontyB
 
 
I don't think people over look Leningrad but Leningrad was unique in that it did not stop the German advance but instead the German advance stopped to besiege it.

The aim of the Germans at Leningrad was starve the city and then demolish it rather than capture it in fact early in the campaign they could have taken it.

September 12: Hitler: “Leningrad will be starved into submission”


The last overland connections with the city were severed in early September. Leningrad and its population of 3 million were under siege, with enough food for one month. A trickle of supplies was hauled across Lake Ladoga. Terrible hunger set in. The German forces encamped on the outskirts of town for a protracted siege. Hitler forbade his commanders to accept a surrender. Leningrad and its population, Hitler ordered, would be bombed and shelled to death. Although Hitler’s plan was not carried out in full, by the time the siege was lifted and Leningrad liberated in January 1944, an estimated million inhabitants had died of severe hardship and horrifying starvation.
--
March 13th, 2011  
LeEnfield
 
 
When you read about all battles that Russia took part in they were on a massive scale, running into millions of men. There was also that huge battle in the Crimea which swallowed up 250.000 Germans. Then there was that huge drive to Berlin where they just smashed there way through. There was also the Russian attack on the Japanese in China where they wiped the Japanese out in two weeks. When you take all the conflicts that Russia was involved with then you have to stand admire just what they achieved.
March 2nd, 2014  
Remington 1858
 
 
The term" Axis" was a clever propaganda ploy. The Berlin - Rome - Tokyo Axis, in fact, existed only as a propaganda term. There was just about no cooperation between the partners and Italy was probably more trouble than it was worth as an ally.
In fact, it could be said that they actually worked against each other as much as anything. Mussolini invaded Greece without even informing Hitler, got into trouble and had to ask for help to keep from being defeated by the poorly equipped Greek Army. That campaign delayed the beginning of the Russian invasion by some weeks, and if it wasn't a fatal blow, it certainly didn't help.
Later, German troops had to disarm and demobilize the Italian Army when Italy surrendered to the Allies.
The Japanese had their own agenda and had no intention of helping Hitler by invading the Soviet Union.
After Stalingrad some of Germany's allies like Romania and neutrals like Spain started to re-think their position.
So Germany's allies didn't prop up Germany, it was the other way around.
March 3rd, 2014  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remington 1858
The term" Axis" was a clever propaganda ploy. The Berlin - Rome - Tokyo Axis, in fact, existed only as a propaganda term. There was just about no cooperation between the partners and Italy was probably more trouble than it was worth as an ally.
In fact, it could be said that they actually worked against each other as much as anything. Mussolini invaded Greece without even informing Hitler, got into trouble and had to ask for help to keep from being defeated by the poorly equipped Greek Army. That campaign delayed the beginning of the Russian invasion by some weeks, and if it wasn't a fatal blow, it certainly didn't help.
Later, German troops had to disarm and demobilize the Italian Army when Italy surrendered to the Allies.
The Japanese had their own agenda and had no intention of helping Hitler by invading the Soviet Union.
After Stalingrad some of Germany's allies like Romania and neutrals like Spain started to re-think their position.
So Germany's allies didn't prop up Germany, it was the other way around.
Erich von Manstein stated in his memoirs that of all Germany's allies only the Romanians had the potential to be trained to German standards, he regarded Romanian troops highly although thought they were poorly educated and badly led and equipped.

If I could find my copy of his memoirs I would give you the exact comments.

As for the Italians well to placate the Italians amongst us I will agree that there were units that fought extremely well but on the whole the Italian war effort was generally abysmal.
March 3rd, 2014  
lljadw
 
As there were no decisive battles,the whole discussion is a wast of time .
March 6th, 2014  
MontyB
 
 
Are you sure that you don't have that back to front.
March 6th, 2014  
lljadw
 
Not sure if I am following
March 6th, 2014  
lljadw
 
I don't know why after all these years,people still are talking about decisive battles: a lot of battles were important in WWII/WWI,but none was decisive .

Let's take Midway : was it important ? Yes: it was a big blow for Japan,was it decisive ? No :it decided nothing .

If Japan had won at Midway,would the result be that US woud have stopped the war,or that Japan would parade in Washington ?

US won at Midway;was this causing the Japanese surrender in 1945 ?