Battle of Stalingrad


Where would the USSR have been without the Battle of Britain, which stopped Germany invading Britain and allowed Britain and its Commonwealth to fight on alone in the world until the USSR was forced into the war by Germany’s attack in mid-1941?

Imagine what would have happened to the USSR if Britain had been defeated and the German forces it held against it in western Europe and the Mediterranean and the Atlantic to mid-1941 had been released for the assault on the USSR.

Not to mention the material and materiel support which came to the USSR from Britain and from America based through Britain to the USSR after the USSR was forced into the war.

Around the same time Britain was busy evacuating its army from France so it could continue its lone fight with its Commonwealth against Germany, the USSR after carving up eastern Europe with Germany was busy massacring 20,000 or so Polish soldiers at Katyn.

Shortly afterwards Britain defeated Germany in the Battle of Britain, which held German forces against Britain in various theatres.

This allowed the USSR to avoid fighting Germany, which was a very good idea as Stalin, with the rare brilliance of paranoid dictators, had wiped out much of the senior ranks of the Soviet officer corps in his memorably stupid purges and thereby left his army deficient in leadership capable of matching the Germans.

Other way around.

As leccy said,

Either you’re a troll or, politely, ignorant of history.

Either way, best for you to lift your game.

that is, in 1944.

really, the numbers show that Moscow, Kursk and Stalingrad were the largest battles of WWII.

just there where it had been… and to call a military operation ‘battle’ it takes sufficient amount of infantry to be involved in it; so how many Nazi Germany soldiers were destroyed by the British alone?

Oh of course! That evil Beevor, that manages to piss off both the Russians and Germans at the same time…

Largest battle judged by numbers of troops involved doesn’t necessarily equate to most important in an overall strategic sense.

“Battle” is a fluid term in popular and often military usage and in describing elements of an armed conflict.

The way you want to use it results, for example, in the Battle of Britain in the air and the Battle of the Atlantic and the pivotal Battle of Midway on the sea not happening because they didn’t involve infantry.

As for Kursk, it was in conventional land warfare terms an operation involving a series of battles, not, as you say, an operation which was a battle. Battles can occur in various circumstances in land warfare but so far as operations are concerned they are usually part of an operation rather than the entire operation.

A. The figure is irrelevant because
B. British Commonwealth forces were the only ones fighting Germany after France surrendered (and the USSR was busy oppressing eastern Europe) which
C. Resulted in significant strategic damage to Germany in the Atlantic and Mediterranean on water and in North Africa on land which
D. Kept the Suez Canal under Allied control which was critical to the war against Japan and
E. Reduced the forces available for Barbarossa and in particular
F. The British Commonwealth campaign in Greece and Crete, although a failure, delayed Barbarossa by about six weeks, which delay was critical by the time the Germans reached Moscow too late to endure the winter which
G. Was lucky for the USSR as if Britain had capitulated when France did, then Hitler would have turned all his forces on his main aim of conquering the USSR and, in the unlikely event your ancestors survived, you’d be speaking German now.

Body counts don’t mean much by themselves, as the Americans and South Vietnamese demonstrated over many years in Vietnam with triumphant, and frequently woefully inaccurate, body counts against an enemy which duly won.

because he is British and was told to white wash the Brits while tarnish Russians and Germans, right?

if by ‘startegic’ you mean a dastardly and cowardly practice of hiding from war while letting others fight it, then Britain is of course the winner here; but the talk is of true war where ‘war’ means destroying as much enemy sodiers as possible, which results in taking and controlling the territories the war is being waged for; this is what only matters.

take the world map and see where’s Germany; is it on sea?

that does make up for a military operation, let’s not go hair-splitting.

because they would show how small was Britain’s role in that war?

Time is running out, because this post in conjunction with your latest posts indicates strongly to me that you are not merely a fu*kwit but a troll.

Nobody could join a military forum and be as stupid as you, yet manage to operate a keyboard.

Your future on this board is in your own hands.

Consider this a mod warning.

reasons?.. or is this censorship?

It’s certainly not Censorship, and your stating that question only deepens the suspicion. Heed the man’s warning, he doesn’t give many.

i only expressed my opinion different from yours, what’s suspiciuos about that?

I have expressed no opinion on this thread’s subject for you differ with. I will however say that some of what you’ve posted in this thread, particularly the Censorship comment, does fit the Troll profile well enough to garner this attention.

and how? will you please elaborate?

I should also and particularly point to some posts in another thread: “The role of the USSR in World War II” In this thread you posted the following. “the East Front was the main WWII front where the biggest part of Nazi Germany troops was amassed and largest & most decisive battles ever in the history of mankind fought, so it was the USSR that won this war, hands down.” To which RS* responded, " Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun* View Post
All by itself? and your reply to that, “all by itself.”
Now, Moderators of long experience will see this as Trolling, or very uninformed, and careless posting. In either case, this can lead to attracting attention of the Staff. And here I will leave it.

for gosh sake why?.. my point is corroborated by all the numbers and statistics of the WWII which are there for everyone to see.

You cite Statistics that are not supported in any books besides those you alone seem to be looking at. Sorry, but by your own posting of this day in other threads, I can see only trouble coming your way. And that fairly soon.


which books? Beevor’s or other West authors who certainly have an axe to grind here?

I begin to fear, in relation to our new Comrade, that “the fen and fell his fastness was …” Yours from the Dragon’s Cave, JR.

Try quoting the entire sentence, instead of rudely edited bits, and pieces. I will not participate in your subterfuge Stalin, nor play along in your Troll game. Soon enough, no one here will. You have one Moderator warning already, I believe it’s time you have two. Your activity on this Site is strongly indicative of Trolling, which is not allowed here. Persist in this behavior, and your future here is dim. This is a Moderator warning.

This unhappy being had long lived in the land of Trolls, since the Staff had cast them out as kindred of Cain …