NationStates Jolt Archive

What is, in your opinion, the most important battle of WW2 in the European/Mediterranean theatre?

I'd say Kursk.

Torino.

Stalingard, I would say.

Cape Matapan never heard of ,all the others i have
i say all of the ones i have heard of

Stalingrad.

I'm so boring, aren't I?

Stalingrad.

I'm so boring, aren't I?
Boring? Hardly.
Stalingrad is one of the most interesting battles in history, and one of the most important battles in World War II.

Along with the novelty of D-Day and the clear moral high ground of the allies, it is one of the things that makes WWII so accessible to authors and such.

The Battle of Moscow was the turning point in Europe.

The Battle of Smolensk and the Battle of Rostov were important contibuting battles, as they disrupted the Blitrzkreig long to help General Winter take advantage of Uncle Adolf's idiotic delays and failures in planning, to win the Battle of Moscow.

Germany was (more or less) on the defensive for the rest of the war once their momentum was stopped at Moscow.

Boring? Hardly.
Stalingrad is one of the most interesting battles in history, and one of the most important battles in World War II.

Along with the novelty of D-Day and the clear moral high ground of the allies, it is one of the things that makes WWII so accessible to authors and such.
Oh, not that Stalingrad is uninteresing, just that so many people choose it as the most decisive battle of WW2.

Including me. It was the turning point for the European Theatre.

Cape Matapan never heard of ,all the others i have
i say all of the ones i have heard of

Get thee to an Aussie naval history text. It was an important, though slighted (as many actually important battles are), Med. sea battle which youir country helped win.

Oh, not that Stalingrad is uninteresing, just that so many people choose it as the most decisive battle of WW2.
Most of the people I know would say D-Day because they’re uneducated.

Including me. It was the turning point for the European Theatre.

While important, as I suggested above, the war turned much earlier.

Most of the people I know would say D-Day because they’re uneducated.

I am sometimes tempted to lump many Stalingrad plumpers in the same catagory when this comes up.

Not so much a battle, but when Hitler decided to attack the Soviet Union, that was the beginning of the end - doomed to failure from the start.

Sure, it went well initially, but I think the outcome was a foregone conclusion.

I'm almost tempted to say that the Battle of the Bulge was the most important, but that's really only so that I don't have to jump on the Stalingrad bandwagon

Not so much a battle, but when Hitler decided to attack the Soviet Union, that was the beginning of the end - doomed to failure from the start.

Sure, it went well initially, but I think the outcome was a foregone conclusion.

that and not taking over the UK

While important, as I suggested above, the war turned much earlier.


You do have a point, in that the Battle for Moscow was the one that stopped the German Forces from a) taking the capital and b) was their farthest point east in the northern areas. But it was Stalingrad that destroyed their ability to strike further, and that eventually began their roll-back to the west.

After all, in the Pacific Theatre, we count the naval turning point as Midway, despite the fact that it can be argued that the Japanese retreated from Pearl, and never struck any further east than that.

Get thee to an Aussie naval history text. It was an important, though slighted (as many actually important battles are), Med. sea battle which youir country helped win.

we did
lets hear it for us

Invasion of Poland. Anyone with half a brain could have looked at that and said "Well, Germany's fucked."

Not so much a battle, but when Hitler decided to attack the Soviet Union, that was the beginning of the end - doomed to failure from the start.

Sure, it went well initially, but I think the outcome was a foregone conclusion.

One could make a decent argument for the Battle of Britain, as that was an underlying influance on the thinking that delayed Barabrossa for the several key weeks.

I'm almost tempted to say that the Battle of the Bulge was the most important, but that's really only so that I don't have to jump on the Stalingrad bandwagon

The war was for all intents over by that point.

Not including the Pacific part of the war, it is impossible to not say a battle between Germany and the Soviet Union. For me it would have to be one of either Moscow, Stalingrad or Kursk (Zitadelle). Sure, the Battle of Britain was very important for Britain, but it didn't have anything to do with the outcome of the war. Also, even the Germans knew they would lose the war by 1944, so the Allied invasion of France is fairly overplayed for being crucial in the defeat of Germany.

Not including the Pacific part of the war, it is impossible to not say a battle between Germany and the Soviet Union. For me it would have to be one of either Moscow, Stalingrad or Kursk (Zitadelle). Sure, the Battle of Britain was very important for Britain, but it didn't have anything to do with the outcome of the war. Also, even the Germans knew they would lose the war by 1944, so the Allied invasion of France is fairly overplayed for being crucial in the defeat of Germany.

Yeah, D-Day didn't save the west from the Germans - it saved the west from the Russians.

Yeah, D-Day didn't save the west from the Germans - it saved the west from the Russians.

Haha, exactly. :)

You do have a point, in that the Battle for Moscow was the one that stopped the German Forces from a) taking the capital and b) was their farthest point east in the northern areas. But it was Stalingrad that destroyed their ability to strike further, and that eventually began their roll-back to the west.

Stalingrad was a desparate attempt to regain the initiative lost at Moscow. If the Germans had won, then yes it would have been the turning point. But if the Soviets had not stopped the Blitzkreig at Moscow, there would have been no need for such a desparate grasp for the Caucauan oil fields.

After all, in the Pacific Theatre, we count the naval turning point as Midway, despite the fact that it can be argued that the Japanese retreated from Pearl, and never struck any further east than that.

Not an apt analogy at all.

Not including the Pacific part of the war, it is impossible to not say a battle between Germany and the Soviet Union. For me it would have to be one of either Moscow, Stalingrad or Kursk (Zitadelle). Sure, the Battle of Britain was very important for Britain, but it didn't have anything to do with the outcome of the war. Also, even the Germans knew they would lose the war by 1944, so the Allied invasion of France is fairly overplayed for being crucial in the defeat of Germany.

I rat6her assume you know whgich one I'll choose. ;)

Yeah, D-Day didn't save the west from the Germans - it saved the west from the Russians.

Hehheheheheh. All too true. Too bad we didn't let George S. have his way. (OTOH, I'm slightly drunk and may have a different opinion on that when sober... maybe...)

Battle Of Britain 1940 (Germans fail at bombing Britain to submission/collaboration.)

The Blitz (More of a psychological battle waged by the Germans on the British population, to try to turn them on their government for not making peace, a German tactic which failed.)

The Battle Of Moscow (Would probably have been a blow for morale if the Soviets had lost Moscow...I wonder if they would have fought on)

The Battle Of Stalingrad (Hitler's push for oil fields to fuel his war machine.)

Battle of Kursk (The last serious German offensive on The Eastern Front that could have still won it for the Nazis.)

El Alamein (Decisive British victory which turned the tide against Rommel.)

Battle Of The Bulge (Hitler's last throw of the dice, to try to force the war to a stalemate and the allies to seperate negotiations by seperating the British and Americans in the offensive

Moscow, Winter 1941/42.

Back then the Wehrmacht still had momentum, and the Soviets were fleeing. If they'd taken Moscow, I believe the Soviet Regime would've collapsed (Stalin was nowhere to be found for like a week when it looked like the Germans would take the city).

After the Germans had to retreat and it turned into a "normal" war, the Red Army was always gonna win. It was the bigger and in many things better equipped military, with shorter supply lines and the population on their side.

Dunkirk. If the Germans had pursued and destroyed the British, which they could have, Britan would have been an easy target for invasion. Also, the whole invasion of Russia it self. Hitler was a terrible millitary commander.

I went with the Battle of Britain. If Hitler had not let up on the RAF, the war probably would have been a tad different.

The most Important Battle of the Second World War was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. It brough the US's industrial might into the war, thus ensuring that the Axis could never hope to produce enough equipment to beat the allies.

The most important Battle of WWII was the battle around the beaches of Cunkirk, thus ensuring that Britain had an army to continue facing Adolf with in the west. It also ensured that America had a stepping point into Europe when we came with all our resources.

The most important Battle of WWII was Hitler's initial invasion of Russia, a failed gamble to take out the largest concentration of MANPOWER in the world that might be able to take Germany down. Without Russia's manpower in the war,Britain would have gone down in months.

My answer: there IS no most imoprtant battle in WWII. It was a combination of elements all rolled together that made Hitler's plans untenable.

There were several turning point battles. THey all combined as coffin nails do, to ensure that we buried Adolf.
Pearl Harbor brought america into the war
Blitz-ruined the Luftwaffe in the long run
El Alemein- broke the DAC's grip (although Hitler never really got the importance if the DAC's role in the war)
Kassarine--American will to fight held firm and or leadership was seasoned here.
Kursk-ruined Hitler's Panzers.
Stalingrad-ruined Hitlers military for good and final.
I could probably name ten other extremely important battles offhand that, had we lost any one of them, might have cost us the war simply by giving HItler time. And it was truly time that became the most important dimension of the war.

The most Important Battle of the Second World War was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. It brough the US's industrial might into the war, thus ensuring that the Axis could never hope to produce enough equipment to beat the allies.

Actually, we were already supplying Britain and the USSR with weapons and materials.

The most important Battle of WWII was the battle around the beaches of Cunkirk, thus ensuring that Britain had an army to continue facing Adolf with in the west. It also ensured that America had a stepping point into Europe when we came with all our resources.

And Cunkirk is where?

The most important Battle of WWII was Hitler's initial invasion of Russia, a failed gamble to take out the largest concentration of MANPOWER in the world that might be able to take Germany down. Without Russia's manpower in the war,Britain would have gone down in months.

Maybe. Do not forget about the Royal navy though.

My answer: there IS no most imoprtant battle in WWII. It was a combination of elements all rolled together that made Hitler's plans untenable.

And Luck had nothing to do with it?

whichever battle was the first.

Stalingard, I would say.

Yeah... that was when Russia pwned Germany.

Battle of the Atlantic.

Logistics or something.

If it separated Africa I would say El Alamein, but that pales in comparison to the battle at Stalingrad.

Infinite Revolution - Whichever battle was first.

That is a good point.

The Battle of Moscow. Not only was it a huge morale boost for Russia, it was also a certification of their air superiority over Germany, and not just at low altitudes with their Yak and Lavochkin fighters.

The MiG-3 was instrumental in keeping Moscow intact, when a squadron of them intercepted German bombers over the city before they could drop their payloads. Sadly, this was the only significant event for the MiG-3, as most of the air war against Germany was fought at very low altitudes, where the fighter was rather pathetic compared to Lavochkins and Yaks.

Actually, we were already supplying Britain and the USSR with weapons and materials.

Lend lease was a spit in the Ocean compared to the vast amounts of gear we began making only after Japan dragged us kicking and screaming in. Yes Roosevelt wanted us in the war, but the rest of the country was having real issues with it. So I doubt that lend lease or even our destrooyers bobbling around the Altantic would have brought us in nearly as quickly as the"Day of Infamy did". Nor as seriously.




And Cunkirk is where?
Just down the coast from Dunkirk, whcih is of course, just shoreward of James T. Kirk..


Maybe. Do not forget about the Royal navy though.
WHat about it? It wasn't doing so hot itself, either up north in the Atlantic and Baltic, nor south in the Med. While it was hammering the Axis navies, by that time the NAVY aspect of it wasn't goinf to count as much as the airpower aspect, and Hitler was doing just fine sinking Royal tonnage via the air and sub forces. Had we not seriously entered the war ENgland may have been isulated and ruined before we sleepwalked into it.


And Luck had nothing to do with it?
I rarely blame luck for anything in battle. Chance, you will find, is almost always a nice way of saying "someone screwed up" either in terms of how a piece of equipment is designed, or how a battle plan is written, or simply how much banging around they can take. Not always, but mostly.

And when are you going to quit harassing me about my styping skillzors, anyway?

Stalingrad for sure. If the Soviets lost, the war was lost.

Stalingrad for sure. If the Soviets lost, the war was lost.

Why?

Why?
Well, it would've freed the German military, so any landing operation would've had a ridiculously tough time.

Even assuming that over the years of exploiting the conquered lands the Germans couldn't have built a fleet and air force capable of conquering Britain, at best it would have been a draw, with everyone eventually signing a ceasefire.

Stalingrad for Europe, but Pearl Harbor for the world.

Well, it would've freed the German military, so any landing operation would've had a ridiculously tough time.

Even assuming that over the years of exploiting the conquered lands the Germans couldn't have built a fleet and air force capable of conquering Britain, at best it would have been a draw, with everyone eventually signing a ceasefire.

But that assumes a rapid and total collapse if the soviets lost stalingrad. At the very least it would have dragged another few years. Really, all that was required for the allies to win was for them to stay in the fight until about august 1945. Probably a bit sooner if things were that desperate.

Really, germany was never going to win. Even if an allied soldier never set foot in france.

Really, germany was never going to win. Even if an allied soldier never set foot in france.

A chimp could have told us that. I could have run that war better than the entire war cabinet and high command.

WELL WHY DIDN"T YOU?:mad:

If YOU had been running the war I might not have died the first twenty three times. :(

Did I ever tell you about the first time I died?:cool:

There I was, surrounded by the 10th Panzer Division, and I didn't have anything on me but a roll of dental floss and two dirty socks...;)

But that assumes a rapid and total collapse if the soviets lost stalingrad.
Oh, I thought he meant "the Soviets lost" on a grander scale. I agree, Stalingrad was sorta inevitable. Even a German victory there wouldn't have changed the fact that the Red Army had stabilised again and was rolling in more equipment and more recruits than the Germans could match.

Really, germany was never going to win. Even if an allied soldier never set foot in france.
"Win" as in defeat the US? No.

"Win" as in make a counter-attack pretty much impossible and eventually force a peace by default? Maybe.

Think of the sheer amount of resources available if the USSR had been there to exploit, plus the option of a second front against the Middle East. Occupation would've been difficult, but if they sorted something out there, that would probably have been enough.

Anyone who said anything but Stalingrad is a moron.

Anyone who said anything but Stalingrad is a moron.
Okay, tell me what would have followed a German victory at Stalingrad (and what it would have looked like)?

Okay, tell me what would have followed a German victory at Stalingrad (and what it would have looked like)?

This isn't a "what if?" question, the Germans poured mucho support into the Eastern front and Stalingrad was the equivilent to Waterloo for Napolean. This was the turning point of the war in Europe.

"Win" as in defeat the US? No.

"Win" as in make a counter-attack pretty much impossible and eventually force a peace by default? Maybe.

Think of the sheer amount of resources available if the USSR had been there to exploit, plus the option of a second front against the Middle East. Occupation would've been difficult, but if they sorted something out there, that would probably have been enough.

See, I believe that atomic bombs would have settled the issue in the western allies favor. Even had everything gone Germany's way in Russia, they just didn't have the time frame to turn around and sucessfully invade the UK to prevent it being use as a giant nuclear capable aircraft carrier.

Anyone who said anything but Stalingrad is a moron.


Well, I am sure glad to have your opinion then. I mean, I might have lived another 60 years and gained a masters in History as well as Anthropology, or possibly even a Phd. And I would never have known it was hopeless because I am a moron.

Or could it be you didn't read my post, which claimed that Stalingrad was ONE OF A GROUP of wins thta were all tuning points? There were a number in WWII, all of which hitler could have won, or lost, and on their on had little effect on the end. But Together they nailed his coffin together.

Hitler could have lived through Stalingrad had he won the Battle of Britain (and Dunkirk) and started shipping her resources to the middle east, where he could have taken all the oil and sent it to the fight. This would have allowed him control of all of western Europe (spain would have signed on and was simply waiting to see what would happen) and the Eastern Med nations (Yugoslavia etc.)

Basically Adolf would of had a lot more troops available, and faced an enemy still badly in need of leadership, going through a reorganization of their armored forces, and with only American supplies to depend on. And the American supplies weren't guaronteed until AFTER Pearl Harbor. Oh, and the Aleuttian campaign where Japan invaded Attu and Kiska, had to be fought to retain the sea route before we could even supply them.


A world war isn't about one battle. In no way is Stalingrad THE battle of the war. It's just the coolest battle of the war, and the one that nailed HItler into a guaronteed loss. Serveral other events led to each of the major battle you guyare voting on, each of which coul dbe considered a battle of its own in the list. OUr win at Midway was caused by JApanes diversion of Carriers to the North Pacific. Why? They needed to neutralize the trheat of us bombing or staging out of Attu and Kirsk. So they sent some serious force up north. AT the same time they were invaind ALaska, they were diluting the Southern fleet which was being hammered. The oNE extyra carrier would have changed thetide of that battle into a win. So the battle for alaske was the event that let us win naval dominance in the pacific. I consider it one of the most important, tho least known, battles of the war.

Not on that list is it? THen why didn't Japan attack Russia as asked? THat would have NIALED Russia. WHy, because, due to Pearl Harbor. they were a little busy with us. PArticularly at Guadalcanal and up in the Aleutians.

It's always a chain, never a single link in the chain.

See, I believe that atomic bombs would have settled the issue in the western allies favor. Even had everything gone Germany's way in Russia, they just didn't have the time frame to turn around and sucessfully invade the UK to prevent it being use as a giant nuclear capable aircraft carrier.
How many nukes could the US have built? A few dozen in a good year, perhaps, not enough to bring down a European Nazi Empire.

And besides, for the US to successfully deliver the bombs to Japan required the Japanese defenses to be basically destroyed. It depends on how soon the Germans would have beat the Soviets, but the earlier, the more of the Luftwaffe would have remained intact (it wasn't nearly as badly destroyed in the Battle of Britain as people think). It was worn down in the East, just like everything Germany had.

And with that sort of threat removed, the focus could have shifted on building a proper air defense, which might have been capable of continuing the fight, which ended in real life when the Allies developed long-range escort fighters. Whether Göring was ever going to be the man to do it is another question though. ;)

This isn't a "what if?" question...
Yes it is. If you ask for the most decisive battle, then that implies that the OP is looking for the battle for which a different outcome would have meant the greatest changes to what happened in reality.

So it certainly does make sense to ask what would have happened if the Germans had won the Battle of Stalingrad.

This isn't a "what if?" question, the Germans poured mucho support into the Eastern front and Stalingrad was the equivilent to Waterloo for Napolean. This was the turning point of the war in Europe.

People give too much importance to Waterloo. It was all about the Battle of Leipzig.

A world war isn't about one battle. In no way is Stalingrad THE battle of the war. It's just the coolest battle of the war, and the one that nailed HItler into a guaronteed loss.

That was the jist of the question. That's why I said what I said.

People give too much importance to Waterloo.

I actually really don't know much about the Napoleanic wars. All I know is that Waterloo sealed Napolean's fate.

Battle of the Atlantic.

Logistics or something.

Bingo...troops to Africa, Italy and France...supplies to Russia and England.

Had the outcome been different, the Allies may still have won. The wars course and effects, however, would likely be quite different.

I actually really don't know much about the Napoleanic wars. All I know is that Waterloo sealed Napolean's fate.

It wasn't decisive, though. Even if Napoleon had won Waterloo, his fate would have been sealed in the next battle, or the next.

That was the jist of the question. That's why I said what I said.

But So did Barbarossa. He wouldn't have lost te war due to overwhelming Russina nymbers if he had never attacked Russia, right?


THere is your most important battle.

but he would never have turned away if he didn't think the Brits were going tro come to terms eventually-as he starved them out I mean. So the battle for britain and the Blitz kept them in the war, and forced him to attack Russia earlier than he would have liked in order to have enough STUFF to win an even larger warm abd prevent the eastern enemies from joining hands to beat him down. Russia could have taken Germany, but not Germany and JApan. Sadly Japan couldn't commit to help Adolp because they had another war on their hands, begun at Pearl HArbor.


My point is, at no time did he lose the war. Rather through a seris of stupid decisions he was led to finally grow so egomaniacal that he thouht he could win at Stalingrad by beating th city down, with no aircover, badly suplied and freezing troops. Stalingrad was IMHO just the last of several dozen battles all of which were absolutley necessary to lead him into that trap.

It wasn't decisive, though. Even if Napoleon had won Waterloo, his fate would have been sealed in the next battle, or the next.

I am not so sure. He was a whiley sum bitch. He could pull a new division out his backside and throw them in at the right spot better than any other leader I have studied. When is old guard ran, I think, he knew it was over. not just the Battle, but that he was really done.

i think there were loads. Battle o' Britain,england could have been lost.

D-Day,the war would have ended a lot later.

Stalingrad,germans could have pushed on to moscow.

et cetera,et cetera.

How many nukes could the US have built? A few dozen in a good year, perhaps, not enough to bring down a European Nazi Empire.

And besides, for the US to successfully deliver the bombs to Japan required the Japanese defenses to be basically destroyed. It depends on how soon the Germans would have beat the Soviets, but the earlier, the more of the Luftwaffe would have remained intact (it wasn't nearly as badly destroyed in the Battle of Britain as people think). It was worn down in the East, just like everything Germany had.

And with that sort of threat removed, the focus could have shifted on building a proper air defense, which might have been capable of continuing the fight, which ended in real life when the Allies developed long-range escort fighters. Whether Göring was ever going to be the man to do it is another question though. ;)

Germany did have a proper air defence. Speer helped organize it. By 1943 huge amounts of german resources were going into it. 30% of all artillery shells, 9,000 dual purpose 88mm guns, and thousands of inteceptors. It didn't stop the bombers getting through. Also, germany never had to intercept B-29s. I imagine they wouldn't have been rolled out in Europe until the first nuclear mission. Probably masked by a large diversionary bomber stream at night elsewhere.

There simply wouldn't have been enough time for the german armament industry to switch over much more production whatever happened in the USSR.

And, hey, if the first one wiped out hitler and his buddies, that might have sapped the will to risk more straight away.

There simply wouldn't have been enough time for the german armament industry to switch over much more production whatever happened in the USSR.
Well, imagine a German victory in 1941/42, if the Soviet Union collapses when Moscow is taken and Stalin disappears never to be seen again.

That's three years until the first nuke is ready. A lot can happen in three years.

I am not so sure. He was a whiley sum bitch. He could pull a new division out his backside and throw them in at the right spot better than any other leader I have studied. When is old guard ran, I think, he knew it was over. not just the Battle, but that he was really done.

I still find it hard to imagine Napoleon beating the Seventh Coalition.

I still find it hard to imagine Napoleon beating the Seventh Coalition.
Well, if I recall correctly, Britain was pretty broke by then.

After beating Napoleon the first time the alliance more or less decided that was it. They expelled Napoleon and started their own lives again, getting into fights with each other and so on.

When he came back, the allies didn't really know what to do for a while. The will to fight the war all over again wasn't really there.

They went anyways, and beat Napoleon at Waterloo. If they hadn't, I think they may well have decided to just let the guy have France and that's that. They didn't care about Napoleon III a few decades later, for example.

Well, imagine a German victory in 1941/42, if the Soviet Union collapses when Moscow is taken and Stalin disappears never to be seen again.

That's three years until the first nuke is ready. A lot can happen in three years.

I suppose it depends what germany would do after that. Possibly, if it ignored north africa and put everything into the battle of the atlantic and V-2s, it could have forced a ceasefire with the UK before the first nukes and things would have ended up in a stalemate.

On the other hand, hitler wasn't known for making the wisest production or strategic decisions. Maybe it might have spent the next twenty-four months trying to force a north african victory and squandered the availble time.

They key thing to consider, I suppose, is that the germans imagined that atomic bombs were decades away from actually being practical weapons. It wouldn't be something that entered into their calculations.

I'm of the opinion that a Nazi Empire would have collapsed within a few decades anyway because of the Nazification of schools and universities.

ok i see some of you are doing a what if of world war two

i give you one, what if world war one did not end when it did as was still going in the 1970s

I'm of the opinion that a Nazi Empire would have collapsed within a few decades anyway because of the Nazification of schools and universities.
Hehe, a lot of people have thought about the viability of the Nazi system over the years, and no one's really come up with an answer.

It avoided the issues of planned economies, and it certainly appealed to people's darker side (what with the whole pyramide principle always leaving you in charge of someone else and so on). My political economy lecturer thought that in case of a German victory the system might well have done quite well for itself. Certainly moreso than the sort of crap Mussolini conjured up.

But that's what-ifs, I guess.

And when are you going to quit harassing me about my styping skillzors, anyway?

:confused:

Anyone who said anything but Stalingrad is a moron.

Here's a tip for you. Look at the Battle of Britain before making grandiose claims like this statement.

If Hitler had not let up on the RAF when he did, he could have effectively eliminated the Royal Air Force from the field of battle. With no air cover over Britain, the German Air Force could have pounded it for as long as they liked.

The Battle of the Atlantic.

Without the victory over the U-Boats, US supplies could not have made it across the ocean, Britain would have starved and the supply line to the Soviets would have been seriously weakened.



World War II was a war of logistics, not of manuever and tactics, but supply. The rivet gun, not the machine gun, won the war.

This isn't a "what if?" question, the Germans poured mucho support into the Eastern front and Stalingrad was the equivilent to Waterloo for Napolean. This was the turning point of the war in Europe.

Actually the Russian Winter played a bigger part in the defeat of the German Army.

It wasn't decisive, though. Even if Napoleon had won Waterloo, his fate would have been sealed in the next battle, or the next.

His fate was sealed near Moscow.

But So did Barbarossa. He wouldn't have lost te war due to overwhelming Russina nymbers if he had never attacked Russia, right?


THere is your most important battle.

but he would never have turned away if he didn't think the Brits were going tro come to terms eventually-as he starved them out I mean. So the battle for britain and the Blitz kept them in the war, and forced him to attack Russia earlier than he would have liked in order to have enough STUFF to win an even larger warm abd prevent the eastern enemies from joining hands to beat him down.


WRONGO! Because of his Italian Allies, he actually DELAYED the start of Barbarosa from when he actually wanted to start the invasion of Soviet Russia. By doing so, he committed perhaps one of the biggest blunders in Europe. When he did finally attack, he only had a few months left to actually do something before the Russian Winter set in.

Read up alittle on this topic about Barbarossa. If he had not delayed it, Moscow would have probably fallen.

Russia could have taken Germany, but not Germany and JApan.

Care to place a bet on that?

Sadly Japan couldn't commit to help Adolp because they had another war on their hands, begun at Pearl HArbor.

Could it be for racial reasons why they did not help Adolf?

My point is, at no time did he lose the war.

*cough* bullshit *cough*

Rather through a seris of stupid decisions he was led to finally grow so egomaniacal that he thouht he could win at Stalingrad by beating th city down, with no aircover, badly suplied and freezing troops. Stalingrad was IMHO just the last of several dozen battles all of which were absolutley necessary to lead him into that trap.

And delaying Barbarossa made sure that he would never take down the USSR. That's the key to this whole thing. The delay of Operation Barbarossa. No delay possibly ment defeat of the USSR. Delay well...we know what happens.

Well, imagine a German victory in 1941/42, if the Soviet Union collapses when Moscow is taken and Stalin disappears never to be seen again.

That's three years until the first nuke is ready. A lot can happen in three years.

Most likely an effective partisan campaign in the USSR, and the US and UK making an extra effort to ensure victory in North Africa, before moving on to Europe.

1. Battle of the Atlantic
2. Battle of Britian
3. Stalingrad
4. Battle of Taranto
5 The Raid on the Lofoten Islands
6. First and Second Battles of El Alamein
7. Invasion of Sicily
8. D Day
9. Cassino

Here's a tip for you. Look at the Battle of Britain before making grandiose claims like this statement.

If Hitler had not let up on the RAF when he did, he could have effectively eliminated the Royal Air Force from the field of battle. With no air cover over Britain, the German Air Force could have pounded it for as long as they liked.

Yes.


There were 3 fronts in WWII

The Western Front
The Eastern Front

and

the Pacific


Each had a major battle.

Yes.


There were 3 fronts in WWII

The Western Front
The Eastern Front

and

the Pacific


Each had a major battle.

plus South East Asia

Operations "Freshman", "Grouse" and "Gunnerside". Although not neccessarily battles, they were task forces from the british and norwegian resistance that sabotaged the German's heavy water plant. If they hadn't have done this, the Germans would have had an atomic bomb by 1943/4, long before the allies

Operations "Freshman", "Grouse" and "Gunnerside". Although not neccessarily battles, they were task forces from the british and norwegian resistance that sabotaged the German's heavy water plant. If they hadn't have done this, the Germans would have had an atomic bomb by 1943/4, long before the allies

No they wouldn't. The germans were decades away from the bomb.

Hehe, a lot of people have thought about the viability of the Nazi system over the years, and no one's really come up with an answer.

It avoided the issues of planned economies, and it certainly appealed to people's darker side (what with the whole pyramide principle always leaving you in charge of someone else and so on). My political economy lecturer thought that in case of a German victory the system might well have done quite well for itself. Certainly moreso than the sort of crap Mussolini conjured up.

But that's what-ifs, I guess.

I just don't see how a nation can survive when it turns its engineering, science and medical schools into Nazi propaganda camps. The end wouldn't have been quick, but it would have come neverthelss. The Nazis were destroying the very schools that provided the men that designed their weapons. They were far worse than the communists in that respect.

[QUOTE=Allegheny County 2;12093683]WRONGO! Because of his Italian Allies, he actually DELAYED the start of Barbarosa from when he actually wanted to start the invasion of Soviet Russia. By doing so, he committed perhaps one of the biggest blunders in Europe. When he did finally attack, he only had a few months left to actually do something before the Russian Winter set in.

You're right. But had he simply set RUssia ASide and finished the DEsert war, he would have owned the Med, locked up the oil he so badly needed, relieved pressure on that flank, neutralized the BrItish, and been able to build up a force with which to invade RUssia next year. But of course he hated russia too much, felt he could beat russia then trun back to britain, and also was afriad Russia (not without reaon) would attack him first. Plenty of military historians besides myself have argued this point, including of course Kesselring and Rommel who voiced the same opinion as I just did. No one knows if they were right (or we are today) but there it is.

Read up alittle on this topic about Barbarossa. If he had not delayed it, Moscow would have probably fallen.
Try not to take suh a supercilious attitude about all this, I have read plenty about Barbarossa thanks. If Moscow had fallen Stalin would have stepped back and kept fighting, the same as RUssia did against Napoleon. WOuld have made little difference. Russia still had the oil, the food , the factories, and the manpower to continue the fight. Just because your read the opinions of a few German Generals who were trying to defend their reputations after the fact doesn't make their claims thruth.


Care to place a bet on that?
No. But thanks for asking. especially since this is so much a matter of opinion, and not provable either way. I wil say that had Japan Attacked Russia, CHina would have been better off, England and the other Nations in the PAcific would have been better off, and had in general Japan would have been in deep dookey fast. DOesn't mean that combined with Germany they wouldn't have beat a Russia with a two front war, and not nearly as much space to trade for time. As I have said, lots of things happened that affected other things on the other side of the war. THere ar eindications that Hitler expected Japan to hit Russia on it's eastern flank and hel pGermany in that way. But Japan wasn't going there.

Could it be for racial reasons why they did not help Adolf?

No, I don't think so. They were more desperate to actually survive as a player in the Pacific. Beating on Russia wasn't really going to do them much good, since Russian didn't have access or control over what they wanted. America was the big danger to Japan at that point.

*cough* bullshit *cough*

You're not impressing me. Insults don't win an argument. You're better off questioning me.
You are right that was a silly comment. He of course did lose the war, just not at Stalingrad. Stalingrad as I claimed was just the final nail that showed his Russian policy was stupid. And killed his chnace of any sort of victory.



And delaying Barbarossa made sure that he would never take down the USSR. That's the key to this whole thing. The delay of Operation Barbarossa. No delay possibly ment defeat of the USSR. Delay well...we know what happens.

Bullhoockey. Not having the strength and the ability to supply his armies meant he wasn't going to win in RUssia. Delaying it only meant that he wasn't going to get to Moscow before the snow set in. Russia simply did the same thing it has always done: traded space for time until the winter came. Mind, Stalin did some really stupid things, including sacking or killing most of his good generals before the war, and regrouping all his armor just befor ethe invasion didn't help...Nor did hiding for what, a week after Barbaeossa kicked off? But overall, I think HItler was insane to ever try to invade Russia with what he ad. Which was a result of beating France down, and learning that he was brilliant and unstoppable and...basically becoming an egomaniacal loon. You should really look deeper into the whole Barbarossa thing. Having read one or two books doesn't mean you actually get it. What you seem to have got is a few fluffy opinions that don't really look at the whole subject. It was a world war. Events on one side of the world had tremendous effect on opinions on the other side of the world. Baqrabarossa wasn't a good idea. Hitler had other better options but his hatred and misunderstanding of his and the Heer's abilities led him to believe that he could win a fight that he should have put off.

While important, as I suggested above, the war turned much earlier.



I am sometimes tempted to lump many Stalingrad plumpers in the same catagory when this comes up.

I completely agree. It turned when Hitler turned from destroying Britains fighter forces into the blitz. He enver knew how close he was to breaking Britain when he did it. OF course there were a fw incidents like this that he was a fool to let happen, but of course he was a fool, so...:rolleyes:

I'm gonna say something different.

Battle of Britain, because if Britain had collapsed there would have been no one to fight the Germans, Russia were getting whomped or about to, America wasn't in it.

Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India could hardly have done anything to change the situation, keeping in mind most supplies came from Britain.

Yes.


There were 3 fronts in WWII

The Western Front
The Eastern Front

and

the Pacific


Each had a major battle.
Italy was a Front.

I'm gonna say something different.

Battle of Britain, because if Britain had collapsed there would have been no one to fight the Germans, Russia were getting whomped or about to, America wasn't in it.

Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India could hardly have done anything to change the situation, keeping in mind most supplies came from Britain.


Italy was a Front.

No, i'm sorry but that still doesn't make sense. People drastically overplay the role of Britain. From the defeat of France until the Normandy landings, Britain wasn't fighting Germany anyway. The airwar had a very minor role at best in the defeat of Germany. There is North Africa, but a significant number of troops there were colonials, and had Britain been invaded, they still would have fought on in Africa and the outcome would probably have been the same.

There are two ways of looking at this. The Battle which turned the tide of the war, and the Battle which decided the war, and I am going to give one of each, from both Europe and the Pacific.

Europe which decided the war: Failure of Germans to capture Moscow in 1941

Europe which turned the tide: Stalingrad

Pacific which decided the war: Pearl Harbour as it drew the USA into the war, and Japan had no chance of beating them, simply reaching a negotiated peace.

Pacific which turned the tide: I'm not too knowledgeable on the Pacific War, but I will say Midway.

The European War was decided 100% on the Eastern Front, and no battle which was not there can be suggested as being as important as any of the main ones there (Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk etc)

No, i'm sorry but that still doesn't make sense. People drastically overplay the role of Britain. From the defeat of France until the Normandy landings, Britain wasn't fighting Germany anyway. The airwar had a very minor role at best in the defeat of Germany. There is North Africa, but a significant number of troops there were colonials, and had Britain been invaded, they still would have fought on in Africa and the outcome would probably have been the same.

There are two ways of looking at this. The Battle which turned the tide of the war, and the Battle which decided the war, and I am going to give one of each, from both Europe and the Pacific.

Europe which decided the war: Failure of Germans to capture Moscow in 1941

Europe which turned the tide: Stalingrad

Pacific which decided the war: Pearl Harbour as it drew the USA into the war, and Japan had no chance of beating them, simply reaching a negotiated peace.

Pacific which turned the tide: I'm not too knowledgeable on the Pacific War, but I will say Midway.

The European War was decided 100% on the Eastern Front, and no battle which was not there can be suggested as being as important as any of the main ones there (Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk etc)
No, because Stalingrad didn't need to be won to cause the defeat of Nazi Germany, as i said no supplies no victory in Africa, i also mentioned the colonials, it doesn't matter if they were the best without supplies they wouldn't have stood a chance.

Well, it would've freed the German military, so any landing operation would've had a ridiculously tough time.

I am doubtful it would have immediately freed up enough troops. And the "what if" is indeed a good question. Another good what if - what if the Soviets had simply fought to pin the 6th Army at Stalingrad and applied the "extra" armies they used there to do an earlier Operation Saturn attacking other weakpoints on the Ukrainian front and possibly defeating all of Army Group A?

The Battle of the Atlantic.

Without the victory over the U-Boats, US supplies could not have made it across the ocean, Britain would have starved and the supply line to the Soviets would have been seriously weakened.

World War II was a war of logistics, not of manuever and tactics, but supply. The rivet gun, not the machine gun, won the war.

Indeed a good choice, but is it within the scope of the OP? And if battles outside the theater that had profound influance on the theater are allowed, then see below for another good choice.

Russia could have taken Germany, but not Germany and JApan. Sadly Japan couldn't commit to help Adolp because they had another war on their hands, begun at Pearl HArbor.

Wrong. See below.

Could it be for racial reasons why they did not help Adolf?

Nope. Try on the Battle of Khalkhin Gol instead. The Red Army devestating defeat of the Japanese forces was instrumental in the decision to go with the "Strike South" faction's plans as opposed to the "Strike North" faction. If it had not been for Georgy Zhukov's excellent command and Japan's tactical doctrine's being mismatched with the Soviet's, the European Theater may well have been different - no Georgy Zhukov (likely to have either been purged or busy defending the east) and Siberian Divisions to defend Moscow from Guderian...

Nope. Try on the Battle of Khalkhin Gol instead. The Red Army devestating defeat of the Japanese forces was instrumental in the decision to go with the "Strike South" faction's plans as opposed to the "Strike North" faction. If it had not been for Georgy Zhukov's excellent command and Japan's tactical doctrine's being mismatched with the Soviet's, the European Theater may well have been different - no Georgy Zhukov (likely to have either been purged or busy defending the east) and Siberian Divisions to defend Moscow from Guderian...


no wayzor dudzor. That is a very simplistic and uninformed view of what happened between Japan and RUssia. Japan ended up "winning" in 04 against RUssia (at least they ended up gaining territory although your are right in that Japan lost a buttload of men. And then they got treated as losers and thus lost face and got angry that they were being treated as if they weren't one of the gang (they felt it was racism which it was, and which was par for the course for everybody in those days).

*EDIT* Just realized your were talking about their head bump in 38' which was really not very big and not very important to the overall nature of the war. 85k troops on Japans side was a spit in the ocean. And this had little or no effect again on the decisin to fight America... *EDIT*

As for America, well. I'll quote wikipedia because I don't feel like going into it myself:

Oil was Japan's most crucial resource; her own supplies were very limited, and 80% of Japan's imports were from the U.S. The Imperial Navy relied entirely on imported bunker oil stocks.[2]

There was considerable division in the Japanese high command. The Army wanted to "go south", to capture the oil and mineral reserves of the Dutch East Indies. The Navy was certain this would bring the U.S. into the war. To forestall American interference, an attack on the Pacific Fleet was considered essential. (The certainty of American aid to Britain in the Pacific was far from clear at the time, even to today.)

THere was never going to be an attack on russia because Japan needed oil. The earlier war with russia didn't really affect the strategic reasoning for going to war with America, and not Russia as Germany hoped. I will say again what I have been saying all day:

If Germany had played their cards right, They could have rolled up the mediterranian, and moved counterclockwise up through the Balkans, and THEN had enough oil to handle Russia, as well as better equiped troops in the next year. There is no evidence that Stalin intended to do anything to Germany. The closest we get is his comment that he would need 6 months or so to be prepared for an invasion. If you look at the date he made the comment, it would have dumped him invading Germany in Januaray for god's sake. He was just making an abstract, not a plan.

There is also much to say about HItler, Italy and the Balkans. That Italy took any action is a direct resilt of Hitler's stupidity (he didn't tell mussolini his plans so Mussolini took action for himself, thus dragging Hitler into several messes) AND the attack into the Balkans did not affect the Russian invasion the way Hitlers GEnerals claimed later. THey were just covering their own asses for not haveing a real plan for Barbarossa. Losers often blame dead men for their screwups, OKW was no exception to this.\


As for your claim that Russian couldn't take Germany--you gave GOT to be kidding! Of course they could have. And did. Most of the warfighting was done BY the Russians, not us. Most of the losses were Russian. All Russia had to do on one front against Germany was keep stepping back. This tightened their lines of cummunication, strung the Germans out, and forced the GErmans to make decisions they weren't able to make. Any way Germany struck they were going to run out of men, supplies and time. Any way Germany went Russia was only going to grow stronger.

Again, I'd appreciate it if you guys wouldn't reply so...confidently tha I am an idiot. I dont do it to you.

no wayzor dudzor. That is a very simplistic and uninformed view of what happened between Japan and RUssia.

Err.. no. It's a very well informed view.

Since it's a handy source and you trust it well enough to quote it yourself, I will quote the wiki:
Aftermath

Following the battle, the Red Army attacked what remained of the Japanese forces and drove them back into Manchukuo. On 16 September the Japanese asked for a cease-fire. Still awaiting the arrival of reinforcements, the Kwantung Army girded for a counteroffensive, but on September 15 an armistice was arranged in Moscow. The troops stopped fighting the next day. Nearly two years later, on April 13, 1941, the parties signed a Neutrality pact, in which they agreed to abide by the existing border.

Among Japanese military authorities, the most widespread opinion was that the Nomonhan Incident had been a maneuver instigated by the Soviet Union in order to restrain the Japanese Army from disposing of the China Incident.

Some sources have suggested that Stalin had been informed by Germans that Germany had no hostile intentions against the USSR at the time. This allowed for the temporary redeployment of some elite units of the Red Army to the east. Stalin took the chance and relocated all the few already existing fully mechanized units to the eastern theatre for deployment against the Japanese whose forces of tanks and armored cars were considerably weaker. The Japanese were surprised by the highly mechanized status of what they believed to be "local command troops", and some even took these just emerging mechanized units as an already generally existing standard of the Red Army. The devastating outcome of this "testing of Red Army strength" in the end convinced the Japanese Army to choose the "southern strike" (attacking the more promising and comparatively more weakly defended South East Asian areas), and to dismiss the "northern strike" option. As known, Soviet spy Richard Sorge informed his superiors of the Japanese decision to "go south". As he had already correctly predicted the German attack of June 22, Stalin could redeploy his Siberian elites and throw them into the battle for Moscow in December, 1941.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khalkhin_Gol

In the end, Nomonhan ruined the so-called 'Strike North' faction that had dominated Japanese strategic thinking until then. Now the 'Strike South' faction, led by the navy, would be ascendant. The Strike South leaders looked enviously at the oil rich Dutch East Indies (modern Indonesia), at strategic Malaya and Singapore, at Burma and Indochina, as the new war in Europe paralyzed the British and French. The only thing stopping the Japanese now was the US Pacific Fleet at its base at Pearl Harbor.
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/20thcentury/articles/nomonhan.aspx
Japan ended up "winning" in 04 against RUssia (at least they ended up gaining territory although your are right in that Japan lost a buttload of men. And then they got treated as losers and thus lost face and got angry that they were being treated as if they weren't one of the gang (they felt it was racism which it was, and which was par for the course for everybody in those days).

:confused:

You do realise I'm talking about the Second Russo-Japanese War, not the first - the one where the Soviets won and caused the Japanese to , right?

As for America, well. I'll quote wikipedia because I don't feel like going into it myself:
Oil was Japan's most crucial resource; her own supplies were very limited, and 80% of Japan's imports were from the U.S. The Imperial Navy relied entirely on imported bunker oil stocks.[2]

There was considerable division in the Japanese high command. The Army wanted to "go south", to capture the oil and mineral reserves of the Dutch East Indies. The Navy was certain this would bring the U.S. into the war. To forestall American interference, an attack on the Pacific Fleet was considered essential. (The certainty of American aid to Britain in the Pacific was far from clear at the time, even to today.)

That contradicts your reasoning...



THere was never going to be an attack on russia because Japan needed oil.

Factually incorrect.

The earlier war with russia didn't really affect the strategic reasoning for going to war with America, and not Russia as Germany hoped.

Factually incorrect.

snip - irrelivant

As for your claim that Russian couldn't take Germany--you gave GOT to be kidding! Of course they could have. And did. Most of the warfighting was done BY the Russians, not us. Most of the losses were Russian. All Russia had to do on one front against Germany was keep stepping back. This tightened their lines of cummunication, strung the Germans out, and forced the GErmans to make decisions they weren't able to make. Any way Germany struck they were going to run out of men, supplies and time. Any way Germany went Russia was only going to grow stronger.

Err... nice strawman.

Again, I'd appreciate it if you guys wouldn't reply so...confidently tha I am an idiot. I dont do it to you.

no wayzor dudzor. That is a very simplistic and uninformed view of what happened between Japan and RUssia.
As for your claim that Russian couldn't take Germany--you gave GOT to be kidding!
Quoted as a rebuttal.

You caught me before I edited:D You're right at first I thought you were talking about the 04 war, not the pre WWII attck on russian forces.

Japan attacking Russia in force was about as likely as you admitting that your replies are nasty and condecending. That's okay. You're just a bit of text on the internet, right? Not a blockhead in one of my classes.

THe attack on Russia in 38 was an experiment prodded forwartd by the go north people onto the go south people. It was never going to win and the Go south people knew it and so allowed the go north people to humiliate themselves and prove that only by beating AMerica in the pacific could Japan hope to grab enough oil to actually maintain themselves as a power. An attack on the North was never in the cards, as I have said. To claim otherwise as a result of superficially looking at situation could easily allow you to mistakenly claim that Japan was seriously looking at attacking Russia. However even with all of Hitler's nudging and goading and attempts to "bribe" the Japanese, it was never going to happen.

As for my argument that Russia could have taken Germany, what in the world are you talking about? I was replying to the argument that Germany could have taken RUssia. Most authorities will aggree: with the battle plan Germany attacked with (Operation Barbarossa) Adolf had no hope. Particularly with his pathetic strategic skillzors which never looked beyond his own ego.

As for my comments being...rude, well, take them as you will. In fact it was an attempt to get you to lighten up. As with Hitlers attack on Moscow: I give up. Wail away at me, nothing I could say or do would change your need to belittle anyway, I am sure.
In case you are unsure, replying with one word :WRONG and then slashing someones argument to shreds without allowing for opnion or other information is somewhat rude. Just thought I would clarify for you since you seem oblivious.

No, i'm sorry but that still doesn't make sense. People drastically overplay the role of Britain. From the defeat of France until the Normandy landings, Britain wasn't fighting Germany anyway. The airwar had a very minor role at best in the defeat of Germany. There is North Africa, but a significant number of troops there were colonials, and had Britain been invaded, they still would have fought on in Africa and the outcome would probably have been the same.

There are two ways of looking at this. The Battle which turned the tide of the war, and the Battle which decided the war, and I am going to give one of each, from both Europe and the Pacific.

Europe which decided the war: Failure of Germans to capture Moscow in 1941

Europe which turned the tide: Stalingrad

Pacific which decided the war: Pearl Harbour as it drew the USA into the war, and Japan had no chance of beating them, simply reaching a negotiated peace.

Pacific which turned the tide: I'm not too knowledgeable on the Pacific War, but I will say Midway.

The European War was decided 100% on the Eastern Front, and no battle which was not there can be suggested as being as important as any of the main ones there (Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk etc)


I don't agree but I thank you for trying to be reasonable in your disagreement. To bad people in this forum seem to need to beliettle in addition to arguing a point.

I beieve you are right that, after Japan attacked Pearl, Midway was the biggie in the PAcific. Have you thought about the fight for the aleutians? Look up Adak, Kiska, Dutch Harbor and Attu. Our 7th Division (which had trained as a mech force and dumped its trucks) and 4th inf regiment got hammered driving the Japanese out of ALaskas eastern most islands. By doing so, and by drawing japans naval forces north when they should have been at midway, we accidently ensured that Japan lost Midawy, and Russia got her trucks...An interesting campaign, fought on a shoestring budget.

You caught me before I edited:D You're right at first I thought you were talking about the 04 war, not the pre WWII attck on russian forces.

So I was correct that you were confused.

Japan attacking Russia in force was about as likely as you admitting that your replies are nasty and condecending. That's okay. You're just a bit of text on the internet, right? Not a blockhead in one of my classes.

Ad hominem attacks and appeals to ridicule deserve no reply.

THe attack on Russia in 38 was an experiment prodded forwartd by the go north people onto the go south people. It was never going to win and the Go south people knew it and so allowed the go north people to humiliate themselves and prove that only by beating AMerica in the pacific could Japan hope to grab enough oil to actually maintain themselves as a power. An attack on the North was never in the cards, as I have said. To claim otherwise as a result of superficially looking at situation could easily allow you to mistakenly claim that Japan was seriously looking at attacking Russia. However even with all of Hitler's nudging and goading and attempts to "bribe" the Japanese, it was never going to happen.

You make reasonable points there. If you wish, shall we make this a new thread?

As for my argument that Russia could have taken Germany, what in the world are you talking about? I was replying to the argument that Germany could have taken RUssia. Most authorities will aggree: with the battle plan Germany attacked with (Operation Barbarossa) Adolf had no hope. Particularly with his pathetic strategic skillzors which never looked beyond his own ego.

I'm still confused as to why you are putting words in my mouth to build your strawman. I never said the Russians couldn't take the Germans.

As for my comments being...rude, well, take them as you will. In fact it was an attempt to get you to lighten up. As with Hitlers attack on Moscow: I give up. Wail away at me, nothing I could say or do would change your need to belittle anyway, I am sure.
In case you are unsure, replying with one word :WRONG and then slashing someones argument to shreds without allowing for opnion or other information is somewhat rude. Just thought I would clarify for you since you seem oblivious.

You're the only one been rude and nasty here. I'm willing to debate the points yopu brought up above if you are willing to drop the ad hominems.