|
|
Post by Frederick the Great on Feb 19, 2017 6:19:42 GMT
I'd like to know who vote for Crete and how they think that was the most important.
|
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Feb 19, 2017 9:00:26 GMT
en.bookfi.net/book/1054299I think it could be interesting... David Glantz is one of the best scolars in the field. Very unbiased analysis in my opinion...
|
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Feb 19, 2017 9:30:47 GMT
Interesting to read an opinion about stupid Hitler and great german generals. And Hitlers enemies did not make mistakes :0)
If not Hitler's "stupidity", there were no german initial succsesses in war in the first place... Guess, who took von Manstein's plan out of nowhere and made it the famous "sickle cut"? There were dozens such examples. And when things went badly, of course, scapegoat was needed. Hitler was dead and of course it was all only his fault :0)
Yes, dead dogs do not bite.
It was easy for those generals to write after the war, that Hitler was stupid, that general "Winter" was too cold (general "Summer" too hot, general "Autumn" to muddy), that Russians were so many and so on and on. The main reason is that they were stupid enough themselves, believing in his insane dreams and following him in his great insane gamble...
In real history "ifs and buts" do not work... All make mistakes in war. Who makes less - wins!
|
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Feb 19, 2017 9:48:24 GMT
Another example of more balanced opinion
|
|
|
|
Post by Isoroku Yamamoto on Sept 3, 2017 4:27:18 GMT
I think that Invasion of Yugoslavia is turning point to the war. This had delayed operation Barbarossa. If it wasn't happened then Germany would destroy Sowiet Union within few months
|
|
|
|
Post by Nobunaga Oda on Sept 3, 2017 6:50:34 GMT
Joke: Can I say most of what Italy did changed the outcome of the war?
Opens Balkans "front", forces Germany to intervene in the end.
Opens North Africa "theatre" forces Germany to intervene in the end.
End result: German deaths, waste of time, spreading Gernan forces thin.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tadamichi Kuribayashi on Sept 3, 2017 14:34:42 GMT
Just going to call out the Aleutian Islands Campaign because of the Akutan Zero.
|
|
|
|
Post by Minnesotaball on Sept 3, 2017 15:10:05 GMT
All depends what theatre of war it was in, I think Midway for Pacific, and Stalingrad in Europe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leonid Govorov on Sept 5, 2017 7:18:51 GMT
All depends what theatre of war it was in, I think Midway for Pacific, and Stalingrad in Europe. True. But Stallingrad is more important then midway since European theater is more important than the pacific imo |
|
|
|
Post by Tadamichi Kuribayashi on Sept 5, 2017 12:55:35 GMT
*proceeds to say that Stalingrad was overrated*
*gets stoned to death for saying that the most important battle in the European theater was the Battle of Moscow*
|
|
|
|
Post by Minnesotaball on Sept 5, 2017 13:32:29 GMT
All depends what theatre of war it was in, I think Midway for Pacific, and Stalingrad in Europe. True. But Stallingrad is more important then midway since European theater is more important than the pacific imo It is true europe was first target for allies, but I do not think countries like China really cared about the war in Europe, they were probably happy the U.S. thrashed japan |
|
|
|
Post by Minnesotaball on Sept 5, 2017 13:33:56 GMT
*proceeds to say that Stalingrad was overrated* *gets stoned to death for saying that the most important battle in the European theater was the Battle of Moscow* I also agree Moscow is very important. It was the transportation hub of the USSR, and had a good industry left not moved east. |
|
|
|
Post by Ivan Kolev on Sept 5, 2017 13:48:26 GMT
All depends what theatre of war it was in, I think Midway for Pacific, and Stalingrad in Europe. True. But Stallingrad is more important then midway since European theater is more important than the pacific imo I mean it was most definitely important, especially for the Europeans here whose lives and futures depended on the outcome, but the millions of Chinese fighting the Japanese would probably argue it was more important for them. As with the Americans, Vietnamese, Burmese, Indonesians, Koreans, etc. It really depends where you're coming from. Imo, both were equally as important as they both blunted the offensives of both Germany and Japan in Europe and the Pacific respectively. A common phrase regarding Midway is "Before Midway, the Japanese never stopped advancing. After Midway, they never stopped retreating". If Midway hadn't occurred, the Pacific/Asian Theatre may have been lost and Hawaii, Papua New Guinea and hell, even Australia may have been invaded and conquered by the Japanese. And with the Pacific war effectively over, the Japanese could potentially focus more on the Chinese or Indian fronts. Same goes for Stalingrad, all though I believe the Soviet Union was just so large and Hitler so incompetent that even if Germany won Stalingrad, I'm not sure if they would have won the war even if they had taken Stalingrad. All in all, I probably say Midway is overall more important as it blunted the Japanese advance which, before then, never ceased. |
|
|
|
Post by Der Kaiserreich on Sept 5, 2017 14:48:55 GMT
Honestly I don't think there is one most important battle in WW2.
The tides didn't turn suddenly in one battle. It was a series of battles that gradually turned it, like the ocean tides in real life. If you drew WW2 on a graph, I don't think it would look like a mountain with any battle at it's peak, but curved. Every battle affected every other battle after. Every battle mattered. Every battle was important. Heck, even the failed landing at Dieppe (I believe that what it's called) is important because it taught the Allies a lesson that helped them plan D-Day. And what's the good of Stalingrad if Moscow was taken, and vice versa?
There are just so many important battles. More than one are most important, and it does injustice to ignore the others. That's why I decided not to vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leonid Govorov on Sept 6, 2017 5:29:39 GMT
True. But Stallingrad is more important then midway since European theater is more important than the pacific imo I mean it was most definitely important, especially for the Europeans here whose lives and futures depended on the outcome, but the millions of Chinese fighting the Japanese would probably argue it was more important for them. As with the Americans, Vietnamese, Burmese, Indonesians, Koreans, etc. It really depends where you're coming from. Imo, both were equally as important as they both blunted the offensives of both Germany and Japan in Europe and the Pacific respectively. A common phrase regarding Midway is "Before Midway, the Japanese never stopped advancing. After Midway, they never stopped retreating". If Midway hadn't occurred, the Pacific/Asian Theatre may have been lost and Hawaii, Papua New Guinea and hell, even Australia may have been invaded and conquered by the Japanese. And with the Pacific war effectively over, the Japanese could potentially focus more on the Chinese or Indian fronts. Same goes for Stalingrad, all though I believe the Soviet Union was just so large and Hitler so incompetent that even if Germany won Stalingrad, I'm not sure if they would have won the war even if they had taken Stalingrad. All in all, I probably say Midway is overall more important as it blunted the Japanese advance which, before then, never ceased. But same with Stalingrad. Though some can argue the battle of moscow made them retreat, the casualty of the red were high, making it another German victory. I think it depends which theater you think is more important, if the asian, then yes,the battle of midway was a turning point, but if European(like myself), then Stallingrad is the highlite of WW2. |
|
