To me, Stalingrad is the greatest battle of the war. What would the Soviets really have lost by losing Stalingrad? Prestige? The war wouldn't have been over for them. They still had thousands of miles into which to retreat and conduct partisan operations, etc.
Besides, in the unlikely even that the Soviets were to have lost Stalingrad, the US was developing the atomic bomb to drop on Germany (not Japan), developing B-29 and B-36 bombers to be able to bomb Germany directly from the US, etc.
No, Stalingrad was only important if the Germans were to have lost - which they did. From Stalingrad on, the Soviets knew they had a chance, and the Germans knew they could be defeated and even destroyed. The psychological tables had turned.
I think that Stalingrad is much more important than other battles because it is the most important battle on the most important front of the war. Just remember, the Soviets killed about 80% of all of the Germans who were killed in the war. It was in Russia that Germany was defeated.
2006-12-16 11:45:28
·
answer #1
·
answered by Its not me Its u 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
There were hundreds of most important battles, but Stalingrad in Europe and Midway in the Pacific were two that turned the momentum around to the Allis which consisted of Russia, England, United States and a dozen more Countries.
2006-12-15 23:08:01
·
answer #2
·
answered by zclifton2 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I would guess that it was either the battle of midway or the first battle of El Alamein. Midway because if we had lost instead of winning, the war in the pacific likely would have dragged on an extra year or two. Even with nukes, we needed an airbase close to the Japanese home islands, and air superiority, neither of which we would have had so soon if we had lost midway. Hell, we might have sued for peace since our whole west coast would have been defenseless.
I say maybe the first battle of el alamein because I really think that if Rommel had captured alexandria the brits would have sued for peace.
2006-12-15 23:32:34
·
answer #3
·
answered by Chance20_m 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
There are so many battles that changed the face of the war. Kursk or Stalingrad are two very important ones. During Kursk the Russians managed to hold their ground dispite so many losses and the Germans were never again able to mount such a great offensive.
Stalingrad is marked as one of the bloodiest and is def. a turning point.
2006-12-15 22:50:57
·
answer #4
·
answered by J B 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Battle of the Atlantic during WW II is often remembered as the classic contest between submarine and surface ship and, in many respects, as the maritime history of World War I repeated. Missed in this superficial assessment is the remarkable growth of complexity on many levels. Through the lens of complexity, the featureless ocean becomes a rugged landscape, and the belligerent forces resemble Boolean networks that become more complex and effective with each interaction.
The history in the Battle of the Atlantic acquires new meaning when viewed as the interaction between co-evolving, computational devices. Each tactical formation, such as a convoy or a wolfpack, becomes the emergent property of local interactions of more basic units. When opposed to each other, these military structures were the solution proposed to the problem presented by its opposite. New organizations facilitated new tactics, which look much like algorithms.
The urge to survive an increasingly capable adversary stimulated innovation by making pre-existing organizations less rigid in concept and practice. Previously disparate elements, such as land, sea, and air forces, were allowed to self-organize into large scale socio-technological systems. New *local* functions, such as long range communications, radar, and forward firing depth charges, encouraged new formations, which made more complex behaviors (tactics and strategies) accessible. These conferred advantages on a higher level; *global* in the language of complexity, perhaps *strategic* in the military lexicon. Thus, the record of the Battle of the Atlantic is one in which emergent characteristics present new, more intractable problems for a co-evolving enemy.
2006-12-15 22:48:50
·
answer #5
·
answered by dstr 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
In the Pacific, Midway
In Africa Al Alemain
In Europe, D-Day
In Russia either Stalengrad or Kursk.
In the Atlantic, May 1943 and the end of Uboat supremeacy
Or it could have been Pearl Harbor.
Granted this is from the Allied standpoint.
2006-12-15 22:47:41
·
answer #6
·
answered by planksheer 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Battle of the Buldge really broke down the Germans. But most of the battles were decisive. Midway, D-Day, etc.
2006-12-15 22:45:34
·
answer #7
·
answered by Daniel 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Battle of Stalingrad
1.9 million people died.
-1.1 soviets- 40,000 civilians
-740,000 germans/italians/romanians
110,000 prisoner
"The capture of Stalingrad was important to Hitler for several reasons. It was a major industrial city on the banks of the River Volga (a vital transport route between the Caspian Sea and northern Russia) and its capture would secure the left flank of the German armies as they advanced into the Caucasus. Finally, the fact that the city bore the name of Hitler's nemesis, Joseph Stalin, would make the city's capture an ideological and propaganda coup.[2]" wikipedia
2006-12-15 23:37:29
·
answer #8
·
answered by str8_def+jam 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
In Europe it was probably Stalingrad, in North Africa is was El Alamein and in the Pacific it was Midway.
2006-12-16 01:48:17
·
answer #9
·
answered by brainstorm 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The one of the jews who were struggling to survive.
2006-12-15 22:46:36
·
answer #10
·
answered by mmsc 2
·
0⤊
0⤋