Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The most important battles of WWII

STALIN
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 11:06:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This should be interesting. Basically I posted the most important battles of WWII in order (my opinion). If somebody disagrees with me then please say which battle is the most significant. I will respond to each post.

Significant battles of WWII in order (my opinion):

Battle of Stalingrad
Battle of Moscow
Battle of Britain
Battle of Kursk
Battle of Midway
First Battle of Smolensk
Second Battle of El Alamein
Battle of Guadalcanal
Battle of the Coral Sea
Battle of the Bulge
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 11:23:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why stalingrad so important?
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
STALIN
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 11:30:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 11:23:55 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
Why stalingrad so important?

Stalingrad was the most important turning point in WWII and the bloodiest battle in history. German casualties were 850,000. Soviet casualties were almost 1.2 million. The only other battle that had anywhere near as many casualties was the Battle of Kursk.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 11:55:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Stalingrad and Midway are traditionally seen as turning points in the war. The battle of Britain was also critical as a successful invasion or neutralization of Britain would have freed significant resources to be used against USSR and made D-day impossible.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
STALIN
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 11:59:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 11:57:08 AM, janetsanders733 wrote:
What about the Battle of Iwo Jima?

The battle of Iwo Jima was unimportant. Small and minor. No effect on the outcome of the war. Of coarse the Battle of the Bulge did not have any effect on the outcome on the war, but it did help destroy the remaining German divisions.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 12:24:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 11:57:08 AM, janetsanders733 wrote:
What about the Battle of Iwo Jima?

That battle was psychologically important to the Japanese and Americans because it was the first invasion of Japanese soil. However from a strategic point of view if the Americans had failed to capture the island they could have posted two destroyers and moved on while the defenders starved slowly. It would not have changed the utter destruction of Japanese Navy and Air Force and it would not have stopped Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Now if the U.S. had lost Midway things could have turned out quite differently. That fleet was all that was standing between the Japanese Navy and destroying the American shipyards on the west coast and commencing an invasion of Hawaii.

Japan may not have won since the Nazis lost, and standing against the whole world would have been bad; but there could have made much better terms and possibly kept control of many of their conquests (not China though).

Stalingrad is the epitome of the kinda of losses that prevent the Nazis from crushing the USSR. The USSR could have been defeated or relegated to guerrilla like attacks with little more than infantry rifles (which is what would have happened if the Germans could hold onto the area behind the line marked by St. Petersburg to Moscow to Volgograd).

Without the USSR huge numbers of Nazis can now defend western Europe. D-day is crushed and the only hope is using nukes. Since the Germans were also working on very dangerous military technology there is no guarantee that the war wouldn't turn into judgement day nice and slow like.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
LAQUAINE
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 1:11:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'd agree the Battle of Stalingrad was the most important/significant. The number of deaths alone and the constant switching between German and Russian control showed the immense conflict going on. The battle was fought by millions on each side.

The loss that the Germans suffered made it difficult for them to fight in the rest of the war until eventually Germany was freed from Nazi control and divided to the main allied nations for restructuring.
Man of no scissors
lannan13
Posts: 23,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 4:16:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 11:59:46 AM, STALIN wrote:
At 11/14/2013 11:57:08 AM, janetsanders733 wrote:
What about the Battle of Iwo Jima?

The battle of Iwo Jima was unimportant. Small and minor. No effect on the outcome of the war. Of coarse the Battle of the Bulge did not have any effect on the outcome on the war, but it did help destroy the remaining German divisions.

The battle of Iwo Jima allowed battle torn ship[s to make an emergency landing for their raids on Japan.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
STALIN
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 4:17:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 4:16:20 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 11/14/2013 11:59:46 AM, STALIN wrote:
At 11/14/2013 11:57:08 AM, janetsanders733 wrote:
What about the Battle of Iwo Jima?

The battle of Iwo Jima was unimportant. Small and minor. No effect on the outcome of the war. Of coarse the Battle of the Bulge did not have any effect on the outcome on the war, but it did help destroy the remaining German divisions.

The battle of Iwo Jima allowed battle torn ship[s to make an emergency landing for their raids on Japan.

And if those battle torn ships had not made the emergency landing would Japan have won WWII?
lannan13
Posts: 23,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 4:19:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 4:17:40 PM, STALIN wrote:
At 11/14/2013 4:16:20 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 11/14/2013 11:59:46 AM, STALIN wrote:
At 11/14/2013 11:57:08 AM, janetsanders733 wrote:
What about the Battle of Iwo Jima?

The battle of Iwo Jima was unimportant. Small and minor. No effect on the outcome of the war. Of coarse the Battle of the Bulge did not have any effect on the outcome on the war, but it did help destroy the remaining German divisions.

The battle of Iwo Jima allowed battle torn ship[s to make an emergency landing for their raids on Japan.

And if those battle torn ships had not made the emergency landing would Japan have won WWII?

Bombers, no, it only saved lives.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
STALIN
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 4:35:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 4:19:42 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 11/14/2013 4:17:40 PM, STALIN wrote:
At 11/14/2013 4:16:20 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 11/14/2013 11:59:46 AM, STALIN wrote:
At 11/14/2013 11:57:08 AM, janetsanders733 wrote:
What about the Battle of Iwo Jima?

The battle of Iwo Jima was unimportant. Small and minor. No effect on the outcome of the war. Of coarse the Battle of the Bulge did not have any effect on the outcome on the war, but it did help destroy the remaining German divisions.

The battle of Iwo Jima allowed battle torn ship[s to make an emergency landing for their raids on Japan.

And if those battle torn ships had not made the emergency landing would Japan have won WWII?

Bombers, no, it only saved lives.

My point was simply that Iwo Jima had no effect on the outcome of the war.
lannan13
Posts: 23,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 4:36:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 4:35:44 PM, STALIN wrote:
At 11/14/2013 4:19:42 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 11/14/2013 4:17:40 PM, STALIN wrote:
At 11/14/2013 4:16:20 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 11/14/2013 11:59:46 AM, STALIN wrote:
At 11/14/2013 11:57:08 AM, janetsanders733 wrote:
What about the Battle of Iwo Jima?

The battle of Iwo Jima was unimportant. Small and minor. No effect on the outcome of the war. Of coarse the Battle of the Bulge did not have any effect on the outcome on the war, but it did help destroy the remaining German divisions.

The battle of Iwo Jima allowed battle torn ship[s to make an emergency landing for their raids on Japan.

And if those battle torn ships had not made the emergency landing would Japan have won WWII?

Bombers, no, it only saved lives.

My point was simply that Iwo Jima had no effect on the outcome of the war.

No, if the atomic bomb didn't come around then Iwo Jima served as the launching point for the invasion of Japan.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
STALIN
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 5:00:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 4:36:39 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 11/14/2013 4:35:44 PM, STALIN wrote:
At 11/14/2013 4:19:42 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 11/14/2013 4:17:40 PM, STALIN wrote:
At 11/14/2013 4:16:20 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 11/14/2013 11:59:46 AM, STALIN wrote:
At 11/14/2013 11:57:08 AM, janetsanders733 wrote:
What about the Battle of Iwo Jima?

The battle of Iwo Jima was unimportant. Small and minor. No effect on the outcome of the war. Of coarse the Battle of the Bulge did not have any effect on the outcome on the war, but it did help destroy the remaining German divisions.

The battle of Iwo Jima allowed battle torn ship[s to make an emergency landing for their raids on Japan.

And if those battle torn ships had not made the emergency landing would Japan have won WWII?

Bombers, no, it only saved lives.

My point was simply that Iwo Jima had no effect on the outcome of the war.

No, if the atomic bomb didn't come around then Iwo Jima served as the launching point for the invasion of Japan.

I would disagree with that statement. The Soviets had just invaded Manchuria, North Korea, and the Kuril Islands (not far from Hokkaido, the northern Japanese home island). The Kuril Islands and South Korea (which had been invaded by the US) both would have served as good places from which to mount an invasion of the main Japanese Islands.
Subutai
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 5:26:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What exactly makes you put Stalingrad ahead of Kursk and Moscow?
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
STALIN
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 6:09:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 5:26:12 PM, Subutai wrote:
What exactly makes you put Stalingrad ahead of Kursk and Moscow?

Stalingrad was the turning point of the war. Before the battle of Stalingrad, the Germans were winning. After the battle, Germany was losing. Moscow and Kursk were important, however you only need to look at the casualty count. The Battle Stalingrad had more casualties than Kursk and Moscow combined.

Anyway, these are the reasons Stalingrad was important:
-Saved Stalingrad (the second most important city in the USSR)
-Saved the valuable oil-fields at the Caucuses (Grozny, Baku, Maykop, etc) which provided some 95% of Soviet oil.
-Saved the British Empire (stopped Germany from breaking into the middle-east which was lightly defended from where they could reach India and Egypt)
-Germany suffered a staggering 850,000 casualties
-This was the largest defeat for Germany
-The entire coarse of the war in Europe changed (in other words this was the most important turning point of the war)
-The Germans were in retreat on a scale never seen before shortly following the end of the Battle of Stalingrad
-Ensured that Turkey would not join the axis
Subutai
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 6:16:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 6:09:55 PM, STALIN wrote:
At 11/14/2013 5:26:12 PM, Subutai wrote:
What exactly makes you put Stalingrad ahead of Kursk and Moscow?

Stalingrad was the turning point of the war. Before the battle of Stalingrad, the Germans were winning. After the battle, Germany was losing. Moscow and Kursk were important, however you only need to look at the casualty count. The Battle Stalingrad had more casualties than Kursk and Moscow combined.

Anyway, these are the reasons Stalingrad was important:
-Saved Stalingrad (the second most important city in the USSR)
-Saved the valuable oil-fields at the Caucuses (Grozny, Baku, Maykop, etc) which provided some 95% of Soviet oil.
-Saved the British Empire (stopped Germany from breaking into the middle-east which was lightly defended from where they could reach India and Egypt)
-Germany suffered a staggering 850,000 casualties
-This was the largest defeat for Germany
-The entire coarse of the war in Europe changed (in other words this was the most important turning point of the war)
-The Germans were in retreat on a scale never seen before shortly following the end of the Battle of Stalingrad
-Ensured that Turkey would not join the axis

First, the Germans lost vaulable men they could not replace. Around 200000-500000 men were casulties, over 1000 tanks and 700 aircraft. At the time of their defeat at Kursk, they couldn't afford to lose as many tanks and men as they did in battle. The Soviets could replace their lost tanks and men much more easily than the Nazis could at that point in World War II on the Eastern Front. This battle took away a lot from the Germans that could not be replaced, especially machines. Few were sent as reinforcements.

Second, it sealed Germany's fate on the Eastern Front and allowed the Western Front to be much more easily taken. The significance or this battle in the Eastern Front cannot be denied. Hitler would take a huge gamble, committing a vital portion of his forces to the attack. This gamble, combined with military mistakes, would initiate a defeat that the Wehrmact could not recover from. The German failure also was linked to the Russian strategy and ability to hold off the enormous offensive. Zhukov's planned counter attack would seal Germany's fate, as it would begin in Kursk and lead a Soviet offensive towards Germany. Militarily the battle was critical for both sides success. Many argue that Stalingrad is what shifted the war; it was a significant victory, but it was truly Kursk that turned the tide for Russia and her allies. The battle of Kursk had ended Germany's expansion and would dictated its fate in the war. It is one of the most militarily significant battle in the whole Second World War. As the largest tank battle in history, it is not only important because of the numbers of manpower and resources involved, but it critically wounded Germany beyond recovery.

Third, it opened the door for the Russians to enter Berlin. When Hitler abandoned Operation Citadel on July 13, the Germans' last opportunity to influence events on a strategic level in the East was lost. Because of their dimmed numbers in man and machine and loss of morale, the Germans were easily overrun by the vastly numerically superior, better equipped, and determined force that took Berlin less than two years after Kursk.

All of this put together had drastic influences on the war. Hilter, now faced with the inevitable march of the Russians on Berlin, funnled division after division from the Atlantic defences East just to keep the line stable and unbroken. This left the Atlantic drastically unmanned and outgunned for the Allied landing at Normandy in 1944. As those numbers funneled east were barely enough to keep the front from collasping, soon, it was a three-way pincer movement against Germany from Russia, France, and Italy. The Germans were faced with an inevitable defeat in 1945.

In addition to possibly (but not likely) preventing Germany from winning the war, Kursk saved billions of dollars, millions of lives, and at least a year in time as that pincer movement was finally possible. Had the Germans won Kursk (and they certainly could have), it is unlikely there would have been a serious breach on any front for at least another year. It saved billions as less infrastrucutre had to be rebuilt and fewer soldiers had to be paid. It saved millions as another year of war would have killed millions both directly and indirectly (through concentration camps). Also, if another year had been added to the war, the atomic bomb may have been dropped several more times - and with devestating effect.

In conclusion, Kursk was extremely significant in ending the war quicker and with less lives lost. Kursk was the turning point of the war. Accordingly, it was the Battle of Kursk that provided the turning point in the Eastern Front.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
STALIN
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 6:25:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 6:16:09 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/14/2013 6:09:55 PM, STALIN wrote:
At 11/14/2013 5:26:12 PM, Subutai wrote:
What exactly makes you put Stalingrad ahead of Kursk and Moscow?

Stalingrad was the turning point of the war. Before the battle of Stalingrad, the Germans were winning. After the battle, Germany was losing. Moscow and Kursk were important, however you only need to look at the casualty count. The Battle Stalingrad had more casualties than Kursk and Moscow combined.

Anyway, these are the reasons Stalingrad was important:
-Saved Stalingrad (the second most important city in the USSR)
-Saved the valuable oil-fields at the Caucuses (Grozny, Baku, Maykop, etc) which provided some 95% of Soviet oil.
-Saved the British Empire (stopped Germany from breaking into the middle-east which was lightly defended from where they could reach India and Egypt)
-Germany suffered a staggering 850,000 casualties
-This was the largest defeat for Germany
-The entire coarse of the war in Europe changed (in other words this was the most important turning point of the war)
-The Germans were in retreat on a scale never seen before shortly following the end of the Battle of Stalingrad
-Ensured that Turkey would not join the axis

First, the Germans lost vaulable men they could not replace. Around 200000-500000 men were casulties, over 1000 tanks and 700 aircraft. At the time of their defeat at Kursk, they couldn't afford to lose as many tanks and men as they did in battle. The Soviets could replace their lost tanks and men much more easily than the Nazis could at that point in World War II on the Eastern Front. This battle took away a lot from the Germans that could not be replaced, especially machines. Few were sent as reinforcements.

Second, it sealed Germany's fate on the Eastern Front and allowed the Western Front to be much more easily taken. The significance or this battle in the Eastern Front cannot be denied. Hitler would take a huge gamble, committing a vital portion of his forces to the attack. This gamble, combined with military mistakes, would initiate a defeat that the Wehrmact could not recover from. The German failure also was linked to the Russian strategy and ability to hold off the enormous offensive. Zhukov's planned counter attack would seal Germany's fate, as it would begin in Kursk and lead a Soviet offensive towards Germany. Militarily the battle was critical for both sides success. Many argue that Stalingrad is what shifted the war; it was a significant victory, but it was truly Kursk that turned the tide for Russia and her allies. The battle of Kursk had ended Germany's expansion and would dictated its fate in the war. It is one of the most militarily significant battle in the whole Second World War. As the largest tank battle in history, it is not only important because of the numbers of manpower and resources involved, but it critically wounded Germany beyond recovery.

Third, it opened the door for the Russians to enter Berlin. When Hitler abandoned Operation Citadel on July 13, the Germans' last opportunity to influence events on a strategic level in the East was lost. Because of their dimmed numbers in man and machine and loss of morale, the Germans were easily overrun by the vastly numerically superior, better equipped, and determined force that took Berlin less than two years after Kursk.

All of this put together had drastic influences on the war. Hilter, now faced with the inevitable march of the Russians on Berlin, funnled division after division from the Atlantic defences East just to keep the line stable and unbroken. This left the Atlantic drastically unmanned and outgunned for the Allied landing at Normandy in 1944. As those numbers funneled east were barely enough to keep the front from collasping, soon, it was a three-way pincer movement against Germany from Russia, France, and Italy. The Germans were faced with an inevitable defeat in 1945.

In addition to possibly (but not likely) preventing Germany from winning the war, Kursk saved billions of dollars, millions of lives, and at least a year in time as that pincer movement was finally possible. Had the Germans won Kursk (and they certainly could have), it is unlikely there would have been a serious breach on any front for at least another year. It saved billions as less infrastrucutre had to be rebuilt and fewer soldiers had to be paid. It saved millions as another year of war would have killed millions both directly and indirectly (through concentration camps). Also, if another year had been added to the war, the atomic bomb may have been dropped several more times - and with devestating effect.

In conclusion, Kursk was extremely significant in ending the war quicker and with less lives lost. Kursk was the turning point of the war. Accordingly, it was the Battle of Kursk that provided the turning point in the Eastern Front.

"First, the Germans lost vaulable men they could not replace. Around 200000-500000 men were casulties, over 1000 tanks and 700 aircraft. At the time of their defeat at Kursk, they couldn't afford to lose as many tanks and men as they did in battle."
Germans couldn't afford to lose men at Stalingrad either.

"Second, it sealed Germany's fate on the Eastern Front and allowed the Western Front to be much more easily taken."
True, however the Battle of Stalingrad itself ensured that Germany would lose the war; only question would be how badly? Would it be a negotiated peace or total destruction?

"Third, it opened the door for the Russians to enter Berlin."
It could be said that the Russian march on Berlin began when they drove Germany back 100 miles during the Battle of Moscow. However Kursk was still a long way from Berlin. The Soviets would still have to fight across Ukraine and Poland. Operation Bagration was what opened up the opportunity to capture Berlin and finally destroy Germany.
Subutai
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 6:43:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 6:25:49 PM, STALIN wrote:
At 11/14/2013 6:16:09 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/14/2013 6:09:55 PM, STALIN wrote:
At 11/14/2013 5:26:12 PM, Subutai wrote:
What exactly makes you put Stalingrad ahead of Kursk and Moscow?

Stalingrad was the turning point of the war. Before the battle of Stalingrad, the Germans were winning. After the battle, Germany was losing. Moscow and Kursk were important, however you only need to look at the casualty count. The Battle Stalingrad had more casualties than Kursk and Moscow combined.

Anyway, these are the reasons Stalingrad was important:
-Saved Stalingrad (the second most important city in the USSR)
-Saved the valuable oil-fields at the Caucuses (Grozny, Baku, Maykop, etc) which provided some 95% of Soviet oil.
-Saved the British Empire (stopped Germany from breaking into the middle-east which was lightly defended from where they could reach India and Egypt)
-Germany suffered a staggering 850,000 casualties
-This was the largest defeat for Germany
-The entire coarse of the war in Europe changed (in other words this was the most important turning point of the war)
-The Germans were in retreat on a scale never seen before shortly following the end of the Battle of Stalingrad
-Ensured that Turkey would not join the axis

First, the Germans lost vaulable men they could not replace. Around 200000-500000 men were casulties, over 1000 tanks and 700 aircraft. At the time of their defeat at Kursk, they couldn't afford to lose as many tanks and men as they did in battle. The Soviets could replace their lost tanks and men much more easily than the Nazis could at that point in World War II on the Eastern Front. This battle took away a lot from the Germans that could not be replaced, especially machines. Few were sent as reinforcements.

Second, it sealed Germany's fate on the Eastern Front and allowed the Western Front to be much more easily taken. The significance or this battle in the Eastern Front cannot be denied. Hitler would take a huge gamble, committing a vital portion of his forces to the attack. This gamble, combined with military mistakes, would initiate a defeat that the Wehrmact could not recover from. The German failure also was linked to the Russian strategy and ability to hold off the enormous offensive. Zhukov's planned counter attack would seal Germany's fate, as it would begin in Kursk and lead a Soviet offensive towards Germany. Militarily the battle was critical for both sides success. Many argue that Stalingrad is what shifted the war; it was a significant victory, but it was truly Kursk that turned the tide for Russia and her allies. The battle of Kursk had ended Germany's expansion and would dictated its fate in the war. It is one of the most militarily significant battle in the whole Second World War. As the largest tank battle in history, it is not only important because of the numbers of manpower and resources involved, but it critically wounded Germany beyond recovery.

Third, it opened the door for the Russians to enter Berlin. When Hitler abandoned Operation Citadel on July 13, the Germans' last opportunity to influence events on a strategic level in the East was lost. Because of their dimmed numbers in man and machine and loss of morale, the Germans were easily overrun by the vastly numerically superior, better equipped, and determined force that took Berlin less than two years after Kursk.

All of this put together had drastic influences on the war. Hilter, now faced with the inevitable march of the Russians on Berlin, funnled division after division from the Atlantic defences East just to keep the line stable and unbroken. This left the Atlantic drastically unmanned and outgunned for the Allied landing at Normandy in 1944. As those numbers funneled east were barely enough to keep the front from collasping, soon, it was a three-way pincer movement against Germany from Russia, France, and Italy. The Germans were faced with an inevitable defeat in 1945.

In addition to possibly (but not likely) preventing Germany from winning the war, Kursk saved billions of dollars, millions of lives, and at least a year in time as that pincer movement was finally possible. Had the Germans won Kursk (and they certainly could have), it is unlikely there would have been a serious breach on any front for at least another year. It saved billions as less infrastrucutre had to be rebuilt and fewer soldiers had to be paid. It saved millions as another year of war would have killed millions both directly and indirectly (through concentration camps). Also, if another year had been added to the war, the atomic bomb may have been dropped several more times - and with devestating effect.

In conclusion, Kursk was extremely significant in ending the war quicker and with less lives lost. Kursk was the turning point of the war. Accordingly, it was the Battle of Kursk that provided the turning point in the Eastern Front.

"First, the Germans lost vaulable men they could not replace. Around 200000-500000 men were casulties, over 1000 tanks and 700 aircraft. At the time of their defeat at Kursk, they couldn't afford to lose as many tanks and men as they did in battle."
Germans couldn't afford to lose men at Stalingrad either.


But the losses at Kursk were more significant because not only did that stretch the Germans beyond their boundaries in the Eastern front, they had to send some of their already stretched forces in the East to the West. This also had a big negative effect on German morale.
"Second, it sealed Germany's fate on the Eastern Front and allowed the Western Front to be much more easily taken."
True, however the Battle of Stalingrad itself ensured that Germany would lose the war; only question would be how badly? Would it be a negotiated peace or total destruction?


True, Stalingrad changed the initiative in the Eastern front, but it didn't change the tide of the entire war. You forget the Kursk was a German offensive. Kursk put the ball completely in the Russians' court. Hitler still had aspirations to conquer Russia.
"Third, it opened the door for the Russians to enter Berlin."
It could be said that the Russian march on Berlin began when they drove Germany back 100 miles during the Battle of Moscow. However Kursk was still a long way from Berlin. The Soviets would still have to fight across Ukraine and Poland. Operation Bagration was what opened up the opportunity to capture Berlin and finally destroy Germany.

Expanding on my last point, Operation Bagration would only have been possible with the defeat of the German offensive at Kursk. Stalingrad didn't necessarily lead to Berlin, but Kursk did.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
STALIN
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 6:52:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Before the Battle of Stalingrad, the Germans were winning. After the Battle of Stalingrad, the Germans were losing. The Battle of Stalingrad taught the Soviets how to fight properly and this knowledge is possibly what enabled a victory at Kursk. Kursk (1943) was a German offensive. The Battle of the Bulge (1944) was a German offensive. The Germans conducted offensives until 1945 (not as large as Kursk of coarse).

Historians generally argue that there were three turning points of WWII:

The Battle of Moscow - ensured Germany would not win the war on its own terms; in other words the war would be longer and harder to win.

The Battle of Stalingrad - ensured Germany would lose the war, only question is how badly? Would it be a peaceful negotiation or total destruction?

The Battle of Kursk - answered this question: Germany would lose the war sooner or later.

However the battle of Kursk happened when Germany was already losing the war. I agree it was important and destroyed many German divisions, however during the battle of Kursk there was not as much at steak as at Stalingrad. The Soviets could have lost the battle of Kursk, however the outcome of the war would still be an allied victory; especially true with the huge manpower of the USA poring into the European Theater.
Subutai
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 9:10:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 6:52:30 PM, STALIN wrote:
Before the Battle of Stalingrad, the Germans were winning. After the Battle of Stalingrad, the Germans were losing. The Battle of Stalingrad taught the Soviets how to fight properly and this knowledge is possibly what enabled a victory at Kursk. Kursk (1943) was a German offensive. The Battle of the Bulge (1944) was a German offensive. The Germans conducted offensives until 1945 (not as large as Kursk of coarse).

Historians generally argue that there were three turning points of WWII:

The Battle of Moscow - ensured Germany would not win the war on its own terms; in other words the war would be longer and harder to win.

The Battle of Stalingrad - ensured Germany would lose the war, only question is how badly? Would it be a peaceful negotiation or total destruction?

The Battle of Kursk - answered this question: Germany would lose the war sooner or later.

However the battle of Kursk happened when Germany was already losing the war. I agree it was important and destroyed many German divisions, however during the battle of Kursk there was not as much at steak as at Stalingrad. The Soviets could have lost the battle of Kursk, however the outcome of the war would still be an allied victory; especially true with the huge manpower of the USA poring into the European Theater.

I understand where you are coming from, but I think you're putting too much emphasis on the initial setback. There have been numerous wars where a side was set back, but won the war. Stalingrad and Moscow stopped the initial German offensive, but if planned correctly, Kursk could have gained it back. The effect of Kursk was to shut the door on any more offensive plans in the East.

I guess it's all a matter of interpretation - whether one considers the initial setback or the final opportunity to be more important in the grand scheme of things. The way I see it, the Germans could possibly have taken Moscow if they had won Kursk.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
STALIN
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 9:55:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 9:10:39 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/14/2013 6:52:30 PM, STALIN wrote:
Before the Battle of Stalingrad, the Germans were winning. After the Battle of Stalingrad, the Germans were losing. The Battle of Stalingrad taught the Soviets how to fight properly and this knowledge is possibly what enabled a victory at Kursk. Kursk (1943) was a German offensive. The Battle of the Bulge (1944) was a German offensive. The Germans conducted offensives until 1945 (not as large as Kursk of coarse).

Historians generally argue that there were three turning points of WWII:

The Battle of Moscow - ensured Germany would not win the war on its own terms; in other words the war would be longer and harder to win.

The Battle of Stalingrad - ensured Germany would lose the war, only question is how badly? Would it be a peaceful negotiation or total destruction?

The Battle of Kursk - answered this question: Germany would lose the war sooner or later.

However the battle of Kursk happened when Germany was already losing the war. I agree it was important and destroyed many German divisions, however during the battle of Kursk there was not as much at steak as at Stalingrad. The Soviets could have lost the battle of Kursk, however the outcome of the war would still be an allied victory; especially true with the huge manpower of the USA poring into the European Theater.

I understand where you are coming from, but I think you're putting too much emphasis on the initial setback. There have been numerous wars where a side was set back, but won the war. Stalingrad and Moscow stopped the initial German offensive, but if planned correctly, Kursk could have gained it back. The effect of Kursk was to shut the door on any more offensive plans in the East.

I guess it's all a matter of interpretation - whether one considers the initial setback or the final opportunity to be more important in the grand scheme of things. The way I see it, the Germans could possibly have taken Moscow if they had won Kursk.

We each see it differently. Perhaps if Germany had gone back to the 1939-1941 successful Blitzkrieg then victory would have been possible. Anyway, I think we each said enough about the topic.
NightofTheLivingCats
Posts: 2,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2013 12:09:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/19/2013 11:54:36 AM, STALIN wrote:
At 11/16/2013 4:13:25 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
D-Day.

D-Day had no effect on the outcome of the war.

Do you even know what D-Day is?
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2013 12:16:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/19/2013 11:54:36 AM, STALIN wrote:
At 11/16/2013 4:13:25 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
D-Day.

D-Day had no effect on the outcome of the war.

It kinda did..... Turning Europe into a 2 front war theater exacerbated the rate at which Nazi forces were rolled back from the advances it made and caused Germany to be divided into two different nations that in turn played a role in triggering the Cold War.....
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
NightofTheLivingCats
Posts: 2,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2013 1:20:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/19/2013 12:16:25 PM, imabench wrote:
At 11/19/2013 11:54:36 AM, STALIN wrote:
At 11/16/2013 4:13:25 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
D-Day.

D-Day had no effect on the outcome of the war.

It kinda did..... Turning Europe into a 2 front war theater exacerbated the rate at which Nazi forces were rolled back from the advances it made and caused Germany to be divided into two different nations that in turn played a role in triggering the Cold War.....

Not to mention it liberated Paris/France a hell a lot faster and probably saved Western Europe asses when Russia went batshit.
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2013 1:43:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 11:06:31 AM, STALIN wrote:
This should be interesting. Basically I posted the most important battles of WWII in order (my opinion). If somebody disagrees with me then please say which battle is the most significant. I will respond to each post.

Significant battles of WWII in order (my opinion):

Battle of Stalingrad

Yes. The sheer volume of communists and fascists who died in that battle produced a net good for humanity.

Battle of Moscow
Battle of Britain
Battle of Kursk
Battle of Midway
First Battle of Smolensk
Second Battle of El Alamein
Battle of Guadalcanal
Battle of the Coral Sea
Battle of the Bulge
Tsar of DDO
STALIN
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2013 2:28:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/19/2013 12:09:59 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
At 11/19/2013 11:54:36 AM, STALIN wrote:
At 11/16/2013 4:13:25 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
D-Day.

D-Day had no effect on the outcome of the war.

Do you even know what D-Day is?

I know exactly what D-Day is. The importance of D-Day is largely exaggerated since it came in 1944 and Germany's chances of winning WWII ended in 1943 with the defeat at Kursk. During D-Day, 156,000 allied soldiers assaulted a 10,000 man German front. As a result Germany suffered about 6,000 casualties. During the Battle of Stalingrad, Germany suffered 850,000 casualties. During the Battle of Kursk, about 250,000 casualties. D-Day had no effect on the outcome of the war, it simply ended the war a couple months earlier.
STALIN
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2013 2:29:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/19/2013 12:16:25 PM, imabench wrote:
At 11/19/2013 11:54:36 AM, STALIN wrote:
At 11/16/2013 4:13:25 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
D-Day.

D-Day had no effect on the outcome of the war.

It kinda did..... Turning Europe into a 2 front war theater exacerbated the rate at which Nazi forces were rolled back from the advances it made and caused Germany to be divided into two different nations that in turn played a role in triggering the Cold War.....

The Western Allies promised to open a second front in France in 1942, however it was not until 1944, eleven months before the end of the war, that the front was opened.