NationStates Jolt Archive

I hear all this D-Day was the end of the Reich, or the turning point of the war.

Really I think Stalingrad was the greatest battle of WWII and was the end of the Third Reich.

1. D-Day (is that considered a battle?)
2. Stalingrad

Darn you 4th, before i clicked, i asked the fam what THEY Thought i should say and the answer was , of course


STALINGRAD

Stalingrad was certainly an impressive battle. It epitomized the failure of Hitler's military mindset. Stalin was certainly not intelligent either in fueling the slaughter of so many of his own people. But still, it showed the will of the Russian people to oppose the superior technology of the Nazis.

I would have to vote for the Battle of Britain as the most impressive of WWII. A loss at Stalingrad for the Russians likely would have set them back somewhat but I believe the Russians would have regrouped and pushed the Nazis out eventually. The Russians would have unleashed their newly developed tank that put even the Nazi firepower to shame and won back their country.

Had the Battle of Britain turned out differently, Htiler would have unleashed his entire military might upon the eastern front. No more fighting in Northern Africa. No more fighting in the west. All of his resources focused upon Russia. Its very likely that the United States would have entered the war under different circumstances had England lost. One can only imagine the implications upon history.

Without d-day there would be no stalingrad. one of the points of d day was to take some pressure off russia.

Without d-day there would be no stalingrad. one of the points of d day was to take some pressure off russia.

The Battle for Stalingrad took place during Operation Barbarossa in 1942. D-Day took place in 1944. Say again?

Well actually there are dates, Stalingrad-1942-1943 at least im sure of those dates, D-DAY 1944, yes there was still a Stalingrad.

ok
what about midway?

In terms of sheer size and ferocity, Stalingrad was definetly the greatest battle in WWII. However, you could argue Kursk should be the greatest, simply because of the unabated butchery the Soviets wreaked on the Wehrmacht there. The D-Day Landings were certainly daring and one of those things historians love to point at and say "this was the turning point/rise/fall/collapse of ######". And these are just in the European theater, ignoring the Pacific theater which was just as ferocious.

In short, I don't think any one battle can be called "the greatest of WWII".

Yes I must point out, European, Italian, African, and Pacfic.

The Battle of Manila. By the end of the battle there literally was not a building left standing in Manila*. The Nips were incredibly dug in, and MacArthur had to level the city by lining artillery up wheel to wheel, and firing at the base of buildings. This pained MacArthur greatly, because he loved Manila and was forced to raze it.

*Source: Royal Military Academy Sandhurst

I'm gonna say Kursk, followed closely by Stalingrad.

In terms of gross tonnage, the amphibeous invasion of Okinawa was larger than D-Day. Also, before Americans landed on Okinawa, we shelled the island so much with heavy artillery that if each one of our shells had killed just one Japanese soldier, the battle would have been over before we landed. I don't think it was the greatest battle, but it deserves more recognition.

Here's a list:

1. Stalingrad
2. D-Day (If it can be considered one "battle")
3. the Battle of Britain
4. the battle of Kursk
5. Okinawa

It is definitely between Stalingrad and Kursk.

And then there were the 10 Soviet victories of 1944, each of which dwarfed every land battle battle the other allies fought, with the exception of the Ardennes Offensive. The massive Belarussian Offensive, for example, which was waged across just one section of the Eastern Front.

However, the success of the offensive of Anglo-American troops should be viewed in the context of the general strategic situation in 1944 and the coalition’s co-ordinated strategy.

The Red Army’s winter offensive routed 170 Wehrmacht divisions. In January-May 1944, 40 divisions were transferred from Germany and France to Russia, which weakened Hitler’s troops on the Western Front by summer 1944.

Moreover, four days after D-Day, the Soviets launched an offensive in Karelia and on June 23 the Red Army launched a large-scale offensive in Byelorussia, Operation Bagration, which lasted until August 29. The Soviet onslaught was overwhelming. The operation involved 2.4 million troops, 36,400 artillery guns and mortars, 5,200 tanks and 5,300 combat aircraft. In two months, the Russian armies advanced 500-600 km to the west, with the Nazis suffering half a million casualties. In a bid to close the yawning gap, the German command transferred to Byelorussia a number of formations from other sections of the Eastern Front and partially from western Europe.
The war on the Western Front was waged with divisions, on the Eastern Front, with Army Groups.

D-Day had immense strategic importance more for the post-war and Cold War period, than for WW2 itself. And even bearing this in mind, I would put it no higher than third.

The Battle for Berlin... It was... I cannot put into words what the battle was...

Well if you are talking in terms of importance I would say:

Stalingrad, B. of Brit., or D-Day (if it really was ONE battle)


In terms of a show of force I would say:

Stalingrad, Kursk, Okinawa, B. of the Bulge, or D-Day (If it really was one battle)

Which do you mean in terms of GREATNESS?

I'd say either the Battle of Britian or Stalingrad.

D-Day was actually the begining of the Battle of Normandy, which I'd put as #3 in the European Theatre.

Well how do you look at greatness is the question, do you look at it as how many were killed, or force of the battle, or the rise or fall of something.

Midway. One battle that turned the war in the pacific in our favor.

Greatness could mean strategic, geopolitical or symbollic importance, to name a few.

Stalingrad, Kursk, and the 1944 Offensives were victories of strategic importance.

D-Day was of geopolitical importance. Imagine what the post-war period would have looked like with Soviet satellite states extending across Western Europe. The true significance of the opening of the Western Front lies here, not in its immediate contribution to the defeat of Germany.

And what greater symbollic battle could there be, other than the Battle of Britain? It gave a nation the will to fight on and remains forever iconic. For the US, I suppose it would be Pearl Harbour or Midway.

I take it I'm the only person who's ever even heard of the Battle of manila?

European Theater:
1) Stalingrad - tide turns in the east, Hitlers biggest error
2) Battle of Britain - stopped the tide in the west
3) Kursk - Germany cannot win the war after this one
4) D-Day - western front splits German attention
5) Invasion of Sicily - western allies strat to take out Italy

Pacific Theater:
1) Midway - Japan is lost after this
2) Imphal and Kohima - a largely forgotten turning point in Asia
3) Guadalcanal - Japan is stopped
4) Coral Sea - the tide begins to turn
5) Okinawa - the home islands are invaded, this battle helps Truman decide to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki

I it I'm the only person who's ever even heard of the Battle of manila?

I have heard of it, but I havent really learned about it yet.

The Battle of Manila. By the end of the battle there literally was not a building left standing in Manila*. The Nips were incredibly dug in, and MacArthur had to level the city by lining artillery up wheel to wheel, and firing at the base of buildings. This pained MacArthur greatly, because he loved Manila and was forced to raze it.

*Source: Royal Military Academy Sandhurst

Despite Japan's role as an Axis nation and the atrocious war crimes they committed, please refrain from calling them nips.

As for battles, I would have to say Montgomery's defeat of Rommel during and after CRUSADE as it gave the British and newly arrived American forces a much needed victory after successive defeats.

MacArthur had to level the city by lining artillery up wheel to wheel, and firing at the base of buildings.
My grandfather did exactly the same in Kaliningrad in the last days of WW2. Not the whole city though, just a large stubborn section of it.

It is definitely between Stalingrad and Kursk.

And then there were the 10 Soviet victories of 1944, each of which dwarfed every land battle battle the other allies fought, with the exception of the Ardennes Offensive. The massive Belarussian Offensive, for example, which was waged across just one section of the Eastern Front.

However, the success of the offensive of Anglo-American troops should be viewed in the context of the general strategic situation in 1944 and the coalition’s co-ordinated strategy.

The Red Army’s winter offensive routed 170 Wehrmacht divisions. In January-May 1944, 40 divisions were transferred from Germany and France to Russia, which weakened Hitler’s troops on the Western Front by summer 1944.

Moreover, four days after D-Day, the Soviets launched an offensive in Karelia and on June 23 the Red Army launched a large-scale offensive in Byelorussia, Operation Bagration, which lasted until August 29. The Soviet onslaught was overwhelming. The operation involved 2.4 million troops, 36,400 artillery guns and mortars, 5,200 tanks and 5,300 combat aircraft. In two months, the Russian armies advanced 500-600 km to the west, with the Nazis suffering half a million casualties. In a bid to close the yawning gap, the German command transferred to Byelorussia a number of formations from other sections of the Eastern Front and partially from western Europe.
The war on the Western Front was waged with divisions, on the Eastern Front, with Army Groups.

D-Day had immense strategic importance more for the post-war and Cold War period, than for WW2 itself. And even bearing this in mind, I would put it no higher than third. On the Western Front there were 4 full strength and one under-strength Nazi armies opposed by, I think, 7 Allied armies. If I really had to name a turning point or most important "battle" it was the Allied bombings of Dresden and Berlin. The Brittish and later Brittish and American air superiority won the war, in my opinion.

I it I'm the only person who's ever even heard of the Battle of manila?

Yep. But not nearly as important as Midway or the others I mentioned above. Japan was already on the downward slide by the time Manila came around.

The aerial bombardment of urban areas had little effect on the combat effectiveness of front line units. Three out of four German soldiers and items of military equipment met their end on the Eastern Front, and it was rarely for lack of spare parts. The complete destruction of entire German cities from the air was only achieved at a late stage in the war, by which point many battles had been fought in which hundreds of German divisions had been destroyed, often several dozen at a time. The most effective use of air power during WW2 was actually the use of ground-attack aircraft such as the Il-2 and Il-10 on the Eastern Front, and Allied fighter-bombers on the Western Front. In the Ardennes Offensive, the Germans wrecked two or three Allied Armies before a fuel shortage and a spell of good weather coincided, and allowed the Tempests, Typhoons and Thunderbolts of the Allies to make mincemeant out of German armour.

I have always been a big fan of the gallant Polish cavalry charges during the German/Russian invasion.

The aerial bombardment of urban areas had little effect on the combat effectiveness of front line units. Three out of four German soldiers and items of military equipment met their end on the Eastern Front, and it was rarely for lack of spare parts. The complete destruction of entire German cities from the air was only achieved at a late stage in the war, by which point many battles had been fought in which hundreds of German divisions had been destroyed, often several dozen at a time. The most effective use of air power during WW2 was actually the use of ground-attack aircraft such as the Il-2 and Il-10 on the Eastern Front, and Allied fighter-bombers on the Western Front. In the Ardennes Offensive, the Germans wrecked two or three Allied Armies before a fuel shortage and a spell of good weather coincided, and allowed the Tempests, Typhoons and Thunderbolts of the Allies to make mincemeant out of German armour.The aerial bombing of production centerd coupled with the destruction of supply depots and railway centers virtually ground the Nazi supply to a halt. If one can only build or move things with great difficulty one must devote a much larger segment of one's overall force to supply and logistics.

The differences in the numbers of casualties between the Eastern and Western fronts reflects more on the nature of the struggle and the leaders and the men fighting the battles than it does on importance or even size of the battles.

The aerial bombing of production centerd coupled with the destruction of supply depots and railway centers virtually ground the Nazi supply to a halt. If one can only build or move things with great difficulty one must devote a much larger segment of one's overall force to supply and logistics.
It was largely ineffective. For example, during the first couple of days of the Belarussian Offensive, every railway line in Belarus was destroyed by partisans. The German transport infrastructure was smashed across a whole country. High level bombing of specific targets, with an accuracy of a fraction of 1%, never achieved the same effects. If you needed something like that destroyed, you needed either people on the ground, or dive-bombers. A thousand planes dropping their bombloads onto a circle 5km wide did not work on anything but the largest of targets, such as a whole city district. Unless one is trying to undermine civilian morale, it is a wasted effort.

The differences in the numbers of casualties between the Eastern and Western fronts reflects more on the nature of the struggle and the leaders and the men fighting the battles than it does on importance or even size of the battles.
Quite the reverse. Knocking out a thousand tanks in a couple of days and then mopping up several dozen mechanised infantry divisions in a couple of weeks, and then repeating it time and time again, is not a clash of egos, it is significant to the outcome of the war. The Ardennes Offensive is the only massive set-piece battle the Allies fought in Western Europe (Monte Cassino was possibly another) - by then, that sort of thing was a long-established monthly routine for the Red Army.

The Battle of Manila. By the end of the battle there literally was not a building left standing in Manila*. The Nips were incredibly dug in, and MacArthur had to level the city by lining artillery up wheel to wheel, and firing at the base of buildings. This pained MacArthur greatly, because he loved Manila and was forced to raze it.

*Source: Royal Military Academy Sandhurst

Despite Japan's role as an Axis nation and the atrocious war crimes they committed, please refrain from calling them nips.I honestly don't mean Nip in an offensive way. I say Nip because it's more correct than Jap. Japan, in Japanese, is Nippon. That's why our Asiatic Marines prior to and during WWII called the Japanese Nips; because they knew what was what.

I have always been a big fan of the gallant Polish cavalry charges during the German/Russian invasion.

If memory serves me right, the Russians actually managed to employ Cossack horse cavalry sucessfully against German armor units on a few occassions. It was all done in deep winter and at night.

better late than never, i'm gonna add another vote for kursk followed by stalingrad, then either normandy or the battle of the bulge.

midway was the only truly important single battle in the pacific after that it was an inevitable slow push against a japan that had already lost its one chance for victory. guadalcanel maybe a distant second. okinawa the issue was already decided.

better late than never, i'm gonna add another vote for kursk followed by stalingrad, then either normandy or the battle of the bulge.

midway was the only truly important single battle in the pacific after that it was an inevitable slow push against a japan that had already lost its one chance for victory. guadalcanel maybe a distant second. okinawa the issue was already decided.

Guadalcanal, Coral Sea, and Midway all kind of dovetail into each other as the turning point of the naval war (greatest naval war in history, BTW).

Imphal is ignored in the US, as is much of the British war in Burma and India. But without the defeat there, the Japanese might well have invaded India sucessfully, and that could have reversed the war by giving Japan more resources to draw on.

better late than never, i'm gonna add another vote for kursk followed by stalingrad, then either normandy or the battle of the bulge.

midway was the only truly important single battle in the pacific after that it was an inevitable slow push against a japan that had already lost its one chance for victory. guadalcanel maybe a distant second. okinawa the issue was already decided.

Guadalcanal, Coral Sea, and Midway all kind of dovetail into each other as the turning point of the naval war (greatest naval war in history, BTW).

Imphal is ignored in the US, as is much of the British war in Burma and India. But without the defeat there, the Japanese might well have invaded India sucessfully, and that could have reversed the war by giving Japan more resources to draw on.


i admit i don't know as much about the burmese theater in ww2 as i should. i'd generally leave the coral sea out just because, in and of itself, it wasn't decisive, in fact it was a bit of a draw, if midaway hadn't been won soon after coral sea might well have been regarded as an american defeat.

Interesting to see the way people are responding to this: those who are taking 'greatest' to mean 'most important' seem to be delivering lists of allied victories. If you want turning points in the war and important battles, then how about the axis victories during the invasion of Poland, France and the attack at Pearl Harbour...

blah blah blah, you all bore me to tears with stats on tonnage landed, shells fired, deaths inflicted and meaningless military arguments regarding strategic importance.

Really the greatest battle of World War Two was the battle for ideas. within that struggle was Fascism vs Stalinism and Totalitarianism as a whole vs pluralism and liberalism.

Both my battles would be turning points of the war.
1. The Battle of Midway put the Japanese on the strategic defensive througout the rest of the war.
2. The Battle of Stalingrad was extremely bloodly, and maybe pointless. But it was a morale booster, and it certainly helped the Soviets to garner the will to repel the Germans.

Both my battles would be turning points of the war.
1. The Battle of Midway put the Japanese on the strategic defensive througout the rest of the war.
2. The Battle of Stalingrad was extremely bloodly, and maybe pointless. But it was a morale booster, and it certainly helped the Soviets to garner the will to repel the Germans.

Both my battles would be turning points of the war.
1. The Battle of Midway put the Japanese on the strategic defensive througout the rest of the war.
2. The Battle of Stalingrad was extremely bloodly, and maybe pointless. But it was a morale booster, and it certainly helped the Soviets to garner the will to repel the Germans.

All this talk about about death and destruction is starting to make me want to go buy a gun and waste some people.

My new suggestion..... The battle for common decency that took place at Prinsengracht 263 in Amsterdam. (that one probably sold more books too!)

Interesting to see the way people are responding to this: those who are taking 'greatest' to mean 'most important' seem to be delivering lists of allied victories. If you want turning points in the war and important battles, then how about the axis victories during the invasion of Poland, France and the attack at Pearl Harbour...

axis victories were important because the started the war, and some were important for their use of new tactics but since the allies eventually won the war, their victories are more important for how they affected the future.

Interesting to see the way people are responding to this: those who are taking 'greatest' to mean 'most important' seem to be delivering lists of allied victories. If you want turning points in the war and important battles, then how about the axis victories during the invasion of Poland, France and the attack at Pearl Harbour...

axis victories were important because the started the war, and some were important for their use of new tactics but since the allies eventually won the war, their victories are more important for how they affected the future.

If you want to know what had the greatest impact on the future, it wasnt Stalingard or Ardenne it was Yalta and Bretton Woods.

Interesting to see the way people are responding to this: those who are taking 'greatest' to mean 'most important' seem to be delivering lists of allied victories. If you want turning points in the war and important battles, then how about the axis victories during the invasion of Poland, France and the attack at Pearl Harbour...

Well the allies were ultimately the winners. The agreement seems to be on Stalingrad and Midway, which were the turning points. If the axis powers had won those, or even better, not engaged in them, they may have won the war.

If you want to know what had the greatest impact on the future, it wasnt Stalingard or Ardenne it was Yalta and Bretton Woods.

:) Yes, but the topic is battles, not confences.

i say d-day

iwo jima

and midway

If you want to know what had the greatest impact on the future, it wasnt Stalingard or Ardenne it was Yalta and Bretton Woods.

:) Yes, but the topic is battles, not confences.

I think it is very narrow minded of you to only consider battles as groups of people with guns/tanks/planes etc doing their utmost to murder their fellow human beings. After all, check out some of the other thread in the forum, they are having battles between bands. I dont see anything in the tile of this thread either that indicates that it specifically relates to armed conflict.

I think it is very narrow minded of you to only consider battles as groups of people with guns/tanks/planes etc doing their utmost to murder their fellow human beings.

:roll: Everyone else here seems to know what the topic is. You're the only one suggesting it is other than military batttles.

Please move to the United Nations of the Axis. We are a very active region with a power board and 99% of our members log on 2 to 3 times a day. We are at war with a region right now so the more help the better.

I think it is very narrow minded of you to only consider battles as groups of people with guns/tanks/planes etc doing their utmost to murder their fellow human beings.

:roll: Everyone else here seems to know what the topic is. You're the only one suggesting it is other than military batttles.

Well this is true but that doesnt make my perspective any less relevant. My posts are representing the silent majority of pacifist humanity who choose not to glorify murder in the name if the State.

I think it is very narrow minded of you to only consider battles as groups of people with guns/tanks/planes etc doing their utmost to murder their fellow human beings.

:roll: Everyone else here seems to know what the topic is. You're the only one suggesting it is other than military batttles.

Well this is true but that doesnt make my perspective any less relevant. My posts are representing the silent majority of pacifist humanity who choose not to glorify murder in the name if the State.
and if we understand that instinctivly....what would your point be?

I think it is very narrow minded of you to only consider battles as groups of people with guns/tanks/planes etc doing their utmost to murder their fellow human beings.

:roll: Everyone else here seems to know what the topic is. You're the only one suggesting it is other than military batttles.

Well this is true but that doesnt make my perspective any less relevant. My posts are representing the silent majority of pacifist humanity who choose not to glorify murder in the name if the State.
and if we understand that instinctivly....what would your point be?

My point is that the greatest battles of WW2 were the battles of ideas and of ideologies. Remember why Hitler invaded Russia in the first place.... It was because the ideology of the Nazi Party could not tolerate the existence of communism. Why also were the Americans allied with the british...... Because they shared similar value systems. An alternative picture is that the war was an economic struggle. The need for resources was what drew Japan into the pacific war and the result of the economic battle was that the US proved the superiority of their economic system. Viewed in this way wuold suggest thatnone of the battles the other posters have mentioned were really that siginificant at all, only details of a greater picture. To say that WW2 hinged on the result Stalingard is just like saying that the Battle of the Bulge hinged on one tank being in a particular field at a particular time. It misses the big picture really.

Which is why they say
"You may have won the battle, but the war isn't over!"

Battles are great and awesome (when you minus the bloodshed and agony) but battles are merely dominos in the domino set of war.

Win one well, your likelier (sp) to win the next depending on your strategy


ugh...I hate it when I feel like my brain has a lightbulb over it and I can't communicate my thoughts well.

My point is that the greatest battles of WW2 were the battles of ideas and of ideologies. Remember why Hitler invaded Russia in the first place.... It was because the ideology of the Nazi Party could not tolerate the existence of communism. Why also were the Americans allied with the british...... Because they shared similar value systems. An alternative picture is that the war was an economic struggle. The need for resources was what drew Japan into the pacific war and the result of the economic battle was that the US proved the superiority of their economic system. Viewed in this way wuold suggest thatnone of the battles the other posters have mentioned were really that siginificant at all, only details of a greater picture. To say that WW2 hinged on the result Stalingard is just like saying that the Battle of the Bulge hinged on one tank being in a particular field at a particular time. It misses the big picture really.

So? The topic still remains the same. Did you bother to read the OP?

So? The topic still remains the same. Did you bother to read the OP?

Topic remains the same and so does my perspective. Anyways, gotta log off now, have fun now.

I'll take that answer as a "no, I didn't", so here you are.

I hear all this D-Day was the end of the Reich, or the turning point of the war.

Really I think Stalingrad was the greatest battle of WWII and was the end of the Third Reich.

Kursk. In terms of soldiers involved, this was the largest. It was also a pivotal moment of the Soviet counter-offensive. Stalingrad was also pretty important.

The siege of Leningrad was important and involved tons of people. It doesn't get as much press as Stalingrad, but it was the last true siege in warfare, and one of the most brutal of its kind.

The battle of the bulge was pretty large, although not compared to the eastern front battles. It was the last chance for a German offensive on the western front.

The battle of Leyte Gulf remains the largest naval battle in history, as well as the last time battleships fired on each other. It removed the Japanese naval threat for the rest of the war, as well as being crucial to the success of the retaking of the Philippines.

Really the greatest battle of World War Two was the battle for ideas. within that struggle was Fascism vs Stalinism and Totalitarianism as a whole vs pluralism and liberalism.

The problem here is that we are still waiting to hear who actually won this one.

The siege of Leningrad was important and involved tons of people. It doesn't get as much press as Stalingrad, but it was the last true siege in warfare, and one of the most brutal of its kind.


Siege of Gorazde?

Remember why Hitler invaded Russia in the first place.... It was because the ideology of the Nazi Party could not tolerate the existence of communism.

And it is not hard to understand why: if you look at Germany and the USSR at that point, one was a totalitarian state lead by a paranoid dictator, a populace kept in line by a brutal secret police, and a war machine that had no concern for the costs in human lives that it was inflicting, whilst the other...

Just to satisfy the war mongers out there I might nominate a battle that actually involved direct military confrntation. Before i do i will explain my reasoning.

Battles are not cool,
battles are not fun,
battles are not glorious,
battles involve people bleeding,
battles involve amputations,
battles involve people dying,
battles involve civilian casualties,
Battles are humanity at its worst, in short, battles are not great.

Theerfore my latest nomination for the 'greatest' battle is the Japanese takeover of Singapore from the British as this involved comparatively little actual fighting.

Really it is quite disturning that so many people are happy to talk about massive destruction in such postive terms. It is common acceptance of the glorious struggle myth that leads societies to tolerate war in the first place. Result of this..... American kids from rural Kentucky spilling their intestines onto the sand in Iraq. People will prbably talk about this war as being 'great' one day and the cycle of destruction and misery will continue.

Stalingard just halted the German onslaught into Russia, the Germans could they have invaded during Russia's "warmer" season could have recovered and fought on. The Battle of the Bulge sealed the fate of the Nazis assuring they would have to fight a defensive war from that point onward.

It's definetly a tie between Stalingrad and Kursk for Europe, followed by D-Day and Siege of Leningrad. In the Pacific: Iwo Jima.

I personally don't think any war battles should be labeled as great.

I personally don't think any war battles should be labeled as great.

At last, another sensible poster!

Stalingrad, hands down.

Both my battles would be turning points of the war.
1. The Battle of Midway put the Japanese on the strategic defensive througout the rest of the war.
2. The Battle of Stalingrad was extremely bloodly, and maybe pointless. But it was a morale booster, and it certainly helped the Soviets to garner the will to repel the Germans.

All this talk about about death and destruction is starting to make me want to go buy a gun and waste some people.

My new suggestion..... The battle for common decency that took place at Prinsengracht 263 in Amsterdam. (that one probably sold more books too!)
But despite the sacrifices, both battles got the job done. The two opposing powers were both tyranical, both oppressive, and to compliment that, both fascists. Each of these battles were the first time they bled. It's unfortunate, but neither the US nor the Soviet Union chose to go into war.

Theerfore my latest nomination for the 'greatest' battle is the Japanese takeover of Singapore from the British as this involved comparatively little actual fighting.

Which however lead to the allied POWs being forced to work on the Burma railway, where certain nationalities suffered 66% fatalities, after the fighting was over, due to the inhumane conditions forced upon them. Even the Japanese and Korean guards suffered greatly during the construction: suffering (IIRC) 30% casualties as they guarded the workers.

There may have been little fighting, but there was a hell of a lot of suffering and death...

Both my battles would be turning points of the war.
1. The Battle of Midway put the Japanese on the strategic defensive througout the rest of the war.
2. The Battle of Stalingrad was extremely bloodly, and maybe pointless. But it was a morale booster, and it certainly helped the Soviets to garner the will to repel the Germans.

All this talk about about death and destruction is starting to make me want to go buy a gun and waste some people.

My new suggestion..... The battle for common decency that took place at Prinsengracht 263 in Amsterdam. (that one probably sold more books too!)
But despite the sacrifices, both battles got the job done. The two opposing powers were both tyranical, both oppressive, and to compliment that, both fascists. Each of these battles were the first time they bled. It's unfortunate, but neither the US nor the Soviet Union chose to go into war.

mmmm, nice theory but unfortunately it wasnt the tyrannical oppresive German regime that bled at Stalingrad, it was actually ordinary Germans and ordinary Russians. Similarly it wasnt the Military regime whose planes were sunk attacking midway, it was Japanese kids who were probably scared out of their brains.

Both my battles would be turning points of the war.
1. The Battle of Midway put the Japanese on the strategic defensive througout the rest of the war.
2. The Battle of Stalingrad was extremely bloodly, and maybe pointless. But it was a morale booster, and it certainly helped the Soviets to garner the will to repel the Germans.

All this talk about about death and destruction is starting to make me want to go buy a gun and waste some people.

My new suggestion..... The battle for common decency that took place at Prinsengracht 263 in Amsterdam. (that one probably sold more books too!)
But despite the sacrifices, both battles got the job done. The two opposing powers were both tyranical, both oppressive, and to compliment that, both fascists. Each of these battles were the first time they bled. It's unfortunate, but neither the US nor the Soviet Union chose to go into war.

mmmm, nice theory but unfortunately it wasnt the tyrannical oppresive German regime that bled at Stalingrad, it was actually ordinary Germans and ordinary Russians. Similarly it wasnt the Military regime whose planes were sunk attacking midway, it was Japanese kids who were probably scared out of their brains.
When any nation, particularly toltalitarian regimes, goes to war, they scrap any resources they can find, including personnel. The US and the USSR were not about to sit around while they were being attacked. It was quite unfortunate that their armies had to die, but they would've treated the other side with the same, possibly worse, punishment. It's unfortunate that one leader can dictate the fate of an entire nation in this manner, but unfortunatly, that's the way it works. And as long as the species of homo sapiens exist, and has a passion to fight, no one can ever change the realities of war.

Both my battles would be turning points of the war.
1. The Battle of Midway put the Japanese on the strategic defensive througout the rest of the war.
2. The Battle of Stalingrad was extremely bloodly, and maybe pointless. But it was a morale booster, and it certainly helped the Soviets to garner the will to repel the Germans.

All this talk about about death and destruction is starting to make me want to go buy a gun and waste some people.

My new suggestion..... The battle for common decency that took place at Prinsengracht 263 in Amsterdam. (that one probably sold more books too!)
But despite the sacrifices, both battles got the job done. The two opposing powers were both tyranical, both oppressive, and to compliment that, both fascists. Each of these battles were the first time they bled. It's unfortunate, but neither the US nor the Soviet Union chose to go into war.

mmmm, nice theory but unfortunately it wasnt the tyrannical oppresive German regime that bled at Stalingrad, it was actually ordinary Germans and ordinary Russians. Similarly it wasnt the Military regime whose planes were sunk attacking midway, it was Japanese kids who were probably scared out of their brains.
When any nation, particularly toltalitarian regimes, goes to war, they scrap any resources they can find, including personnel. The US and the USSR were not about to sit around while they were being attacked. It was quite unfortunate that their armies had to die, but they would've treated the other side with the same, possibly worse, punishment. It's unfortunate that one leader can dictate the fate of an entire nation in this manner, but unfortunatly, that's the way it works. And as long as the species of homo sapiens exist, and has a passion to fight, no one can ever change the realities of war.

But despite the sacrifices, both battles got the job done. The two opposing powers were both tyranical, both oppressive, and to compliment that, both fascists. Each of these battles were the first time they bled. It's unfortunate, but neither the US nor the Soviet Union chose to go into war.

mmmm, nice theory but unfortunately it wasnt the tyrannical oppresive German regime that bled at Stalingrad, it was actually ordinary Germans and ordinary Russians. Similarly it wasnt the Military regime whose planes were sunk attacking midway, it was Japanese kids who were probably scared out of their brains.
When any nation, particularly toltalitarian regimes, goes to war, they scrap any resources they can find, including personnel. The US and the USSR were not about to sit around while they were being attacked. It was quite unfortunate that their armies had to die, but they would've treated the other side with the same, possibly worse, punishment. It's unfortunate that one leader can dictate the fate of an entire nation in this manner, but unfortunatly, that's the way it works. And as long as the species of homo sapiens exist, and has a passion to fight, no one can ever change the realities of war.

Regardless of the political niceties of totalitarian political organisation, I still feel that your use of the term 'bled' is inappropriate. Assigning very personal traits to an entire society tends to depersonalize combat when in fact combat is a very personal matter for those involved. In fact, glossing over the brutal facts of battle cannot help but make society more militaristic and accepting of war.

But despite the sacrifices, both battles got the job done. The two opposing powers were both tyranical, both oppressive, and to compliment that, both fascists. Each of these battles were the first time they bled. It's unfortunate, but neither the US nor the Soviet Union chose to go into war.

mmmm, nice theory but unfortunately it wasnt the tyrannical oppresive German regime that bled at Stalingrad, it was actually ordinary Germans and ordinary Russians. Similarly it wasnt the Military regime whose planes were sunk attacking midway, it was Japanese kids who were probably scared out of their brains.
When any nation, particularly toltalitarian regimes, goes to war, they scrap any resources they can find, including personnel. The US and the USSR were not about to sit around while they were being attacked. It was quite unfortunate that their armies had to die, but they would've treated the other side with the same, possibly worse, punishment. It's unfortunate that one leader can dictate the fate of an entire nation in this manner, but unfortunatly, that's the way it works. And as long as the species of homo sapiens exist, and has a passion to fight, no one can ever change the realities of war.

Regardless of the political niceties of totalitarian political organisation, I still feel that your use of the term 'bled' is inappropriate. Assigning very personal traits to an entire society tends to depersonalize combat when in fact combat is a very personal matter for those involved. In fact, glossing over the brutal facts of battle cannot help but make society more militaristic and accepting of war.
People die in battle. People can starve in battle. People can go away severly deformed or sickened.
Yet, one must consider the flipside. Both sides believed that if they won, they'd have the best experiences of their lives. As far as US vets go, they did. Ask any WWII vet out there. They won't say that war wasn't fun and games, but they may say it was the best years of their lives.
Also, one must consider this: if wars are so horrible, why aren't there entire armies of deserters? The only example of a gigantic mutiny I can think of was when Alexander the Great led his troops into India. However, compared to the size of the army, there are usually few desertions. These soldiers, even if they were forced into a military, usually have a reason to fight. People may die in wars, but rarely do they die without cause or a sense of self-esteem.

Hum i once saw the three majour participants in WW2 (europe) stated as this, Russia provided manpower, american machinery and britan time.

So based on that my 3 majour battles or at least most indicative of those generlaisation are for:-

Russia:- Stalingrad

War in cities are not fought with tanks or planes but men, and thier russia could match germany as well if not better. The battle for stalin grad cost germany thier entrie 6th army (the strongest army in the wertchmat) and in the offensive to surround stalingrad shattered the romonain and other satteleite armys effectivly removing them from the war. After stalin grad the germans manged no suscisessfull majour offensive and every offensive the russian tried went through.

America:- Batlle of bludge,

though fought by both american and british armys the majour blow fell on the ameircan, they intially gave way but later supperior techonlology swung the battle fattally in thier favour and took the last of germanys strength with it

Britain:- The battle of britian

(obviously) this battle kept britian in the war and stayed as a thorn in germany side. This once battle desicded by compartivly small numbers of forces meant that we would not be put out of the war (even if we could not alone win it). And by keeping us in the war provented the medeteranin from becoming an axis lake, which it would have done had we lost it (and then probably surendered).

In the pacific theater its harder to tell, and this more than europe was a vast battle of attrition.

For the Japanese:- Peral habour and siganpore

Peral habour started the war and landed a significant blow which while the US recovered handed a vast terriiroty into the japanse hands, though it was not the knockout blow that was hopped for (tribute to american national will that it was not). Siganpore for similar reasons meant to be britans strong hold lost it meant abandoining almost all of our pacifc possession bar india.

For the US:- midway

As other pointed have pointeded out in past histroy infantry can be raised fairly quiqly, the high complex aircraft and ships cannot quickly be replaced. Midway was a turning point because it gutted the elite core of the japanese navy, a tool which could not be replaced with the vastly inferoir economic abilities of the japansese

For britian:- burma

an often forgotten serise of battles, intially lost and then finnaly won in burma prevented the japanse army for taking india, these battles largely fought with india troops tide down a lot of japansise manpower and almost directly lead to demands for india independance to be unignorbale (from this point on it was a when not an if)

For china:- the great march

china was a large combantant i n the pacific therater and had been involved far longer than any other participant. The great march was the result of the loss by the comounist forces of a significant battle they retreated deep into the heartlands of china, altought this was a defeat they later came back and threw the victorious natinalisits (who controlled most of the country at the time of japanse defeat) out of china and onto formosa (now tiawan)


Several notes:-

On the effectivness of the air campagin over germany, it was actually effective in slowing german production. the reason their was no overall decrease is that they moved much of thier production to ocuupied nations checlosvakia in particular, which we could not bomb. In the later stages of the war forced back on only german territory their prouduction reached drastic lows

On the human cost of battle, thiers a quote form an airman in WW2 on seeing pictures of the concentration camps "if i could have seen some of those men in my bomb sites everything would have been clear"

This sums it up nicley yes the majourity of germans and japansese where not directly responsible, but they HAD to be fought to stop those in charge. think 6 million jews and gypyise where killed by the nazis, who knows what the could have done had the suscsseded on ocupying the russian lands they sought. their forced starvation of the ukranises did not bode welll

WW2 is notable in history for being one of the few wars fought on social and moral issues rather than national ones. WW1 was fought for national gaines, WW2 was fought because it had to be. Think britain enerted a kept in war it could have surrended and avoided (at the risk of becoming another vichy france), we lost and empire, bankrupted the country and lost millions of lives. WW2 in hindsight had to be fought because the alternative was worse

(on a side note, the iraq war was proposded on those grounds sadly these grounds can only be spotted by histrcall hindsight)