I cam across this interesting link The 30 Greatest Battles of WWII numbered one to Thirty. The list states the Battle of Stalingrad is third, I can agree with that, but the Battle of Iwo Jima is listed in 26 place, well I got Issues with that. Some might even claim other Battles should be added or removed from the list. Whats your opinion in this matter in hand? Kursk, (4-22 July 1943): estimates of 325 000 and 600,000 wounded that was no battle, just sheer butchery! The 30 Greatest Battles of World War II Check this link Bloodiest Battles of the 20th Century Twentieth Century Atlas - Casualty Statistics - Biggest Battles and Massacres It's to be noted that WWII or Second World War was the bloodiest war in History from (1939-1945) with more than 56+ million dead. WWII, with a conservative estimate of 56.4 million. The country that suffered most in proportion to its population was Poland, with 6,028,000 deaths, equivalent to 17.2% of its total population. The Soviet Union lost an estimated 26.6 million of its citizens. World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .
Then again we can discuss either this from the losses view or the meaning of the battle, as turning points I´d put El Alamein and Stalingrad high up, but then again Wacht Am Rhein i.e. Ardennes 1944 not so high as it was just a doomed operation. There were some huge battles in Russia 1941-42 like Kiev,Vyazma,operation Fredericus and Sevastopol that should go high up in the numbers section.
Iwo Jima --and most of the other Island battles-- was relatively small when compared to the land battles taking place in continental Europe. The naval battles were naturally greatest in the Pacific, though, with Japan being the third strongest naval power after the U.S. and Britain.
I don't agree with their placement of Leyte Gulf, Okinawa, and the Philippines. The Pacific War was already decided by all intents and purposes by the time those battles were fought. The most important Pacific War battles in my opinion, in order: 1. Battle of Midway 2. Battle of the Coral Sea 3. Battle of Guadalcanal (including the third most important Pacific War naval battle, the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal) 4. Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands (completed the decimation of Japan's elite carrier aviators) These four battles, in combination with each other, finished the Imperial Japanese Navy as a viable threat to the burgeoning US Navy, and therefore decided the outcome of the (outside of the China-Burma-India theater) Pacific conflict.
Well I think it comes down to the whole, in what way were they viewing the battles are great? In terms of men and equipment, strategically important, militarily importance, losses, turning points, etc, etc. It is like comparing Battleships to destroyers or apples to oranges, each one is important in it's own way and each one has both flaws and positive's about it.
He's put the finish of the Battle of Normandy too early to tally with his fugures ; Falaise was the third week of August 1944......
I saw that to, on the 24 The US was getting ready to relaunch Operation Cobra on the 25. The Canadian Operation was now Opration Spring and the British still called theirs Op Goodwood. Which was the Caen area the battle for Verrières Ridge. The British Operation Bluecoat was launched July 30th to august 7th, Then Opration Totalize Aug 8-13. Having advanced 9 miles (14 km), the Allies were halted 7 miles (11 km) north of Falaise, and forced to prepare a fresh attack. Operation Totalize - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It's to be Noted some British sources spelled it as "Operation Totalise." In total, the Battle of Verrières Ridge had claimed upwards of 2,800 Canadian casualties. The Battle of the Falaise Pocket was fought from 12–21 August 1944. I do believe those figures are wrong. But his dates are way of for The Battle for Normandy June 6, 1944 to July 24, 1944.
I'm not sure I entirly agree. A collection a four major engagements Leyte Gulf is IMO the crowning achievement of the USN. Halsey screwed up bad, but it set up an epic battle never before even contemplated let alon seen before. Combined with the crossing og the "T" the night before in Surigao Straight it certainly deserves to be the top listed naval battle
What's so great about war then. I must question the author's own definition of how each battle is great. In terms of the outcome to the war, why in the world is the Battle of Berlin rated so high?
The number of men involved in the battle and casualties are taken into account heavily. Just remember, no one will ever agree on these sort of things. I did a poll a while ago in the Military history section on the most important battles in history. a task taken from others suggestions. I did the work in setting it up, and only a dozen or so people voted. When posting the results I got angry PM's over why such and such was not higher or lower. No one voted, but everyone had an opinion that the list was woefully inadequate.
That is one messed up list. Battle of Britain should be THE most important battle of WWII. If the Brits had lost that, WWII would have been a lot different. No bases from which to bomb Germany. German industrial capacity largely intact now. No bases from which to base the RN, or protect Russian bound convoys. No bases from which to invade Europe. No British troops or supplies sent to North Africa, or the rest of the middle east. Forces the US to take ships from the Pacific to bolster the Atlantic. You can pretty much follow my line of thought from there. What would have happened had the UK not been there.
I think there is a difference between 'Greatest' and 'Most Important' and 'Most Influential'. It really depends on the criteria. Typically, 'Greatest' refers to the size of the battle, both in active participants and overall casualties. Also the size of an area the battle took place in.
I found the list interesting, but that's as far as it goes. Remember, this is one person's opinion and we don't know his authority. Plus, I'm not sure how he managed to wrap his criteria together " Importance in the outcome of World War II, Amount of Men and Materials committed to the Battle, Intensity of Fighting and Casualties and Losses incurred in Men and Materials. " Until I can see the legitimacy of his criteria and the weighting of each, it's just someone's list. I would bet that some of the more knowledgeable could put together an equally valid list and be able to defend each ranking. My biggest issue with lists like this is that they marginalize the men who participated in the hundreds (thousands?) of encounters and battles that don't get listed. For each man involved, his own personal war was every bit as important as any on this list. End of rant.