|
|
Post by Stonewall Jackson on Jan 18, 2017 23:23:59 GMT
Alright, so I modeled this off of Devlet I Giray's "Most important war".
So, what do you folks propose was the most important battle in WW2? There are a lot of options, but I am eager to see your views. There are many battles, so I was not able to put all of them down, feel free to list "other" and explain. Me personally, I think the Battle of Luzon (not listed) or Midway was the most important (in the pacific) and Kursk in the Eastern Front.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mountbatten on Jan 19, 2017 2:16:43 GMT
D-day. No France=German supremacy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Jan 19, 2017 4:19:32 GMT
No Barbarossa = Germans in Britain and USA.
Why? Because it would've been only one front
|
|
|
|
Post by best75 on Jan 19, 2017 6:08:47 GMT
No Barbarossa = Germans in Britain and USA. Why? Because it would've been only one front I remember reading something that said stalin was planning to attack Germany so without Barbarossa there still could be two fronts. |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Jan 19, 2017 6:12:05 GMT
No Barbarossa = Germans in Britain and USA. Why? Because it would've been only one front Problem... Stalin. He was planning to attack Germany anyway, but got off-guard completely by the early attack on Hilter's part. Before anyone say it was stupid... If Hilter had allowed his generals to decide what to do in Russia, Operation Barbossa would have been much more effective in crushing Russia's weak industrial base and not to mention that if Germany has effective control of western Russia, it will have access to oil in the southern portion beyond Stalingrad and possibly far south as Iraq/Iran (which was desperately needed for the massive military machines inventory, tanks, planes etc...). |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Jan 19, 2017 6:12:53 GMT
No Barbarossa = Germans in Britain and USA. Why? Because it would've been only one front I remember reading something that said stalin was planning to attack Germany so without Barbarossa there still could be two fronts. Exactly what I was posting but you beat me to the punch!  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2017 7:23:42 GMT
V-Day ended Germany's war effort. Surely that was the most important!
|
|
|
|
Post by Yi Sun Sin on Jan 20, 2017 7:53:13 GMT
It seems nobody likes Midway  My understanding is=Japanese won Midway, or it never happened= less American Troops in Africa, Europe= Better chance for the Axis powers to do well in Europe, Africa. |
|
|
|
Post by Frederick the Great on Jan 20, 2017 11:38:45 GMT
Definety Stalingrad. That was the turning point of the war, not D-Day. D-Day just sped up the German defeat and meant that the Soviets didn't end up with as much influence over all of Europe in the aftermath (I'm not saying it wasn't important). Stalingrad on the other hand led to millions of deaths and crushed any hope of Germany defeating the Soviets. Plus it was the largest battle in history.
On another note, I don't think it makes much sense to have Operation Babarossa here as it wasn't a battle and at least three battles listed here were a part of Babarossa (Kursk, Leningrad and Stalingrad and I may have missed some more).
|
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Jan 20, 2017 11:52:22 GMT
No Barbarossa = Germans in Britain and USA. Why? Because it would've been only one front I remember reading something that said stalin was planning to attack Germany so without Barbarossa there still could be two fronts. just realized I never replied to this (which I should've). Well while the whole world knew after the Fall of France that USSR and Nazi Germany would at some point fight each other it wasn't clear as to who would invade the other first. Hitler (being Hitler) had plans to invade the USSR anyway and had called Russia as "a backward agricultural country" (as well as more stuff that just can't be discussed). The Wehrmacht had planned that if they invaded Russia in the spring or summer they would be able to takeover Moscow and install Hitler as the "head of state" there. (Hell does anyone know Hitler already had printed invitation cards inviting people (definitely "his people") to Leningrad once Leningrad was taken over BEFORE the siege of the city even began! He was also going to rename the city to "Adolfsburg".He was SO DESPERATE!) BUT, the only problem was Germany's useless and "much-of-a-burden-than-a-real-help" ally called "Italy". Italy wasn't having much success ANYWHERE and when they wanted help with Greece and Yugoslavia. Germans were more like; "FINE!". This "help" being a key factor in the war against Russia. Also the myth that "Germany launched Barbarossa in the winter!" Is also false, the Operation was launched in the summer but since getting to Moscow isn't easy (as it looks on the map) it took a while until the Germans got to Moscow. And then, Russian winter started. We all know what happened next. |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Jan 20, 2017 11:55:33 GMT
Definety Stalingrad. That was the turning point of the war, not D-Day. D-Day just sped up the German defeat and meant that the Soviets didn't end up with as much influence over all of Europe in the aftermath (I'm not saying it wasn't important). Stalingrad on the other hand led to millions of deaths and crushed any hope of Germany defeating the Soviets. Plus it was the largest battle in history. On another note, I don't think it makes much sense to have Operation Babarossa here as it wasn't a battle and at least three battles listed here were a part of Babarossa (Kursk, Leningrad and Stalingrad and I may have missed some more). Moscow was also one big battle. (can't forget Russia's capital). You're right about D-Day. It basically put Germany into a two-front war which at that time was totally undesirable. But once the Western Allies landed in France, it accelerated the German defeat. |
|
|
|
Post by Suvorov on Feb 5, 2017 9:30:51 GMT
No Barbarossa = Germans in Britain and USA. Why? Because it would've been only one front I remember reading something that said stalin was planning to attack Germany so without Barbarossa there still could be two fronts. It's the debate about Suvorov's thesis (not me) that Stalin was planning to attack Germany and that Germany was just quicker. It justifies therefore Unternehmen Barbarossa. However, up untill the last minute before Barbarossa, Stalin was keen to keep supplying Germany with all kinds of rare metals and oil. He constanlt ignored the more than 200 reports on the German invasion. When a German socialist deserter crossed the river to tell the Soviets that Barbarossa would start in a very short amount of time, Stalin had him shot. Stalin did have plans about attacking Germany but only when they were in a hopeless, semi-WW1 battle bogged down in France. When this did not happen, he hoped to stretch the alliance untill around 1943, when the Red Army would be ready against Germany. But time would tell if he would attack Germany at that point or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2017 23:15:18 GMT
Stalingrad
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Walpole on Feb 19, 2017 3:00:50 GMT
Battle of Stalingrad was literally Expedition Russia but instead of Napoleon the Great, Adolf Hitler or Führer did it. It resulted to failure because of the "Retreat first, Counterattack later" tactic that Russians use.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quintus Fabius on Feb 19, 2017 6:16:19 GMT
Pearl Harbour.
With enough luck and Germany-Japan cooperation, the USSR could be forced into positions of weakness, and without excuses for dragging USA into the war, Britain could be made to fall.
And Japan Pearl Harbour'd, bringing the US into the war.
|
|
