What is the most fasinating WW2 Battle?

I always wondered what battle intrigues the people the most.

Stalingrad, because of its size, strategic importance, dense and complex fighting, and the events preceding and surrounding it. That said, Kursk is also really interesting.

Third battle of Kharkov or Warsaw Uprising. Can't decide.

Kursk.

I feel like not enough people pay attention to Kursk, it being the largest Tank Battle in history.

JustJason wrote:I feel like not enough people pay attention to Kursk, it being the largest Tank Battle in history.

Kursk has the misfortune of happening on the heels of Stalingrad and right before the invasion of Italy/the Italian Civil War in 1943-44. It's also easy to look pst because it was purely Germans and the Soviets, though it arguably was a more important battle than Stalingrad.

I think it is forgotten mostly in the west.

Overall, Kursk showed that the German army still had a lot of kick in them by Summer 1943 (as did Kharkov part 3) and had the western allies landed in France a year early as Stalin wanted then they would have been driven back into the sea.

I think Operation Husky (allied invasion of Sicily) is the most underrated of the whole war. It opened the long-waited Second Front and it found all the allied peoples (americans, english, french, czechs, polish, belgians, dutch, canadians, australians, new zealanders, indians, italians) fighting together.
And I am so sad it is always obscured by the D-day (I obviously know the difference of the numbers but think, it has been done 1 year before and it has been highly symbolic).

Probably the Battle of Castle Itter right at the end of the war, when American and German soldiers united to drive SS loyalist out of a castle they were held up in in Austria. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_for_Castle_Itter
Friend of mine said there was a good book on it too https://www.amazon.com/Last-Battle-German-Soldiers-Joined/dp/0306822962

I'll second Castle Itter. The fact that it hasn't been made into a movie is a travesty.

It's importance is very underappreciated. The goal of the battle for the Americans was to liberate high-profile French prisoners, including politicians, leaders, and Clemenceau himself.

As the author of the book mentioned above said, "If the SS had managed to get into the castle and kill the French VIPs, the history of post-war France would have been radically different. These people... formulated the policies that carried France into the 21st Century. Had they died, who knows what would have happened?"

But Clemenceau was dead by like 1929. The Former French Prime ministers were Deladier and Reynaud, and yeh I'd be surprised if by 2020 there isn't a movie made about it.

KingDario wrote:But Clemenceau was dead by like 1929.

It was Clemenceau's son. My bad.

Definitely operation Torch and the invasion of Italy in 1943. It was pretty much the first time the United States took an active, leading role in an overland military offensive during WWII, and the failure of the German intervention in Italy and the opening of a southern front against the Reich in 1945 contributed greatly to the success of the Allied invasion of Germany from the west.

I've probably spent as much time researching the Battle of the Bulge as Stalingrad. Both are so complex and vast. Obviously the Stalingrad/Caucasus offensive is an order of magnitude larger, and more important, but there are so many surprises surrounding the Ardenne Offensive and subsidiary attacks in the West such as a massive German air raid on allied military air fields on January 1, 1945, which (if memory serves) included the new jet powered Arrado bombers.