|
|
Post by The Light Bringer on Sept 6, 2017 6:48:09 GMT
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. Actually outcome of Stalingrad was what threw half of Europe in occupation as Germany didn't have enough resources after it to fight the war on both fronts |
|
|
|
Post by Ivan Kolev on Sept 6, 2017 18:37:21 GMT
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. Yes, but I think the Battle of Stalingrad wouldn't have changed the outcome. Midway, I believed, changed the outcome. |
|
|
|
Post by Minnesotaball on Sept 6, 2017 21:41:28 GMT
Stalingrad was the battle that did ruin the German army in the east, but it would eventually happen, as red army far outnumbered germany and they were getting very powerful industrially. Midway was important because it destroyed much of Japan's offensive power, they knew they could never actually defeat the USA, they had to win quick or lose. They could not replace ships as fast, but USA made hundreds of ships far outnumbering japan, and some of those ships went to the atlantic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leonid Govorov on Sept 7, 2017 6:35:57 GMT
Come on. Even Erich von Manstein admits in his memorial that Stalingrad was a game changer in the east. Midway's a game changer in the pacific, yes I agree but the war of hitler vs Roosevelt Churchill Stalin was changed by Stalingrad, which is what most peeople comes to mind when it comes to wwii |
|
|
|
Post by Leonid Govorov on Sept 7, 2017 6:39:31 GMT
Stalingrad was the battle that did ruin the German army in the east, but it would eventually happen, as red army far outnumbered germany and they were getting very powerful industrially. Midway was important because it destroyed much of Japan's offensive power, they knew they could never actually defeat the USA, they had to win quick or lose. They could not replace ships as fast, but USA made hundreds of ships far outnumbering japan, and some of those ships went to the atlantic. In that logic, the Japs would have eventually lost to the Americans due to the same problems Hitler had |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Sept 7, 2017 6:50:21 GMT
And with all respect but Japan never was a millitary power equal to Germany. And she never had so many recources as Germany in 1941-1942. And it was never life or death racial struggle with USA
|
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Sept 7, 2017 7:12:24 GMT
Hitler honestly believed in that struggle... He wrote:
If the war is lost, the nation will also perish. This fate is inevitable. There is no necessity to take into consideration the basis which the people will need to continue even a most primitive existence. On the contrary, it will be better to destroy these things ourselves, because this nation will have proved to be the weaker one and the future will belong solely to the stronger eastern nation (Russia)[1]. Besides, those who will remain after the battle are only the inferior ones, for the good ones have all been killed.
Hitler's Table Talks (1941-1944)
Japan on the contrary had sound strategical goals in mind:
Japanese planning was for fighting a limited war where Japan would seize key objectives and then establish a defensive perimeter to defeat Allied counterattacks, which in turn would lead to a negotiated peace.
Mark Stille "The Imperial Japanese Navy in the Pacific War".
She was never driven by mystical illogical hate. Many people especially in China suffered great atrocity, but there was never a cold blooded plan to exterminate millions of people...
|
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Sept 7, 2017 8:00:36 GMT
St as red army far outnumbered germany . In fact there are severe misconceptions about that. Thanks to great historians (Glantz, Erikson, House...) the broad western public has nowadays a more precise information on this topic: The Red Army was outnumbered by Axis forces in 1941 at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa. Soviet mobilization efforts and steady German losses began to change the force ratios in 1942, but the Red Army only had a roughly 2:1 advantage from February 1943 until mid-1944 before maxing out at a little over 4: 1 at the very end of the war. Here’s another way of looking at the force ratios. The Red Army in the field actually peaked in size in mid-1943, but the ratios continued to shift in its favor due to Germany’s inability to replace losses. The Red Army didn’t keep getting bigger, but it maintained its size while the Wehrmacht steadily lost ground, literally and figuratively. A 2:1 advantage is significant, but falls short of the 3:1 force ratio that is generally regarded as necessary for attacking forces, and it’s a long way from the double-digit advantage that is often claimed. Both sides were able to temporarily achieve greater numerical advantages in certain times and places by concentrating forces. What about force ratios at the Battle of Stalingrad, which has been the focus of so much attention? It turns out there are some surprises here, too. During the defensive phase of urban warfare (August through mid-November 1942), the Red Army was outnumbered about 1.6:1. The Red Army reversed the odds in its counteroffensive in November 1942, achieving about a 2:1 advantage during Operation Uranus. (https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/was-the-russian-military-a-steamroller-from-world-war-ii-to-today/) |
|
|
|
Post by deadman on Sept 7, 2017 21:01:19 GMT
Midway without a doubt was massively important for the pacific theature, should the axis have won that battle then it would have dragged on an axis defeat at least another six monthes
|
|
