I think Eastern Front was the cause for Nazi Germany's defeat,

I disagree on the word "the cause".

Kurst,
The battle of Kurst came after the Germans last big victory the retaking or Kharkov and Belgorod. The Russian got all the intelligence and played the right card and stayed and build up the defensives while concentrating 1/2 the Red army in the bulge. Idiot Hitler insisted on attacking the Kurst salient despite much protest and in the south fought a very good fight but due to the slower movement than he wanted and the fact he pulled panzers to fight the Sicily invasion the Red army finally overwhelmed them. Although it was a bloodbath from Kurst to Berlin for the most the Red army had the initiative for the remainder of the war. Kurst was the turning point. Also it was likely the biggest battle of WW2 for the sheer amount of men and machines that confronted each other simultaneously.

But if as many have argued the war in Russia was lost by the end of 1941 Kursk could not have been the most decisive battle (I am defining "decisive" as the turning point battle) it would have had to have been closer to Moscow time frame.

Personally I went with Stalingrad but I am beginning to think Leningrad may have been closer to reality.

I'll stick with Kurst. Before Kurst the USSR was on shaky ground as far war went. Some winter advances but overall not in a commanding position on the eastern front.

Originally Posted by AVON

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!


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.

The Soviet winter Offensive of 42 resulted in a severe beating for the Soviets with the loss of 100,000's of men. This occurred after operation Uranus I.e., battle for Moscow.

Originally Posted by MontyB

But if as many have argued the war in Russia was lost by the end of 1941 Kursk could not have been the most decisive battle (I am defining "decisive" as the turning point battle) it would have had to have been closer to Moscow time frame.

Personally I went with Stalingrad but I am beginning to think Leningrad may have been closer to reality.

How do you figure Leningrad since this Soviet victory took place in 44?

Originally Posted by JOC

How do you figure Leningrad since this Soviet victory took place in 44?

Because Leningrad was the end point of Army Group North, had it have fallen along with the Kola peninsula Army Group North would have provided the reserve for the other two Army Groups as it was it spent most of the war laying siege to one city.

It should also be remembered that the Axis lost some 600.000 men killed wounded or captured in North Africa

But,NA was not a battle,but a campaign of 2 years