Poll: Which WW2 battle was more instrumental in defeating Germany?

[The Epicosity]

Please, there is no contest.

The eastern front is where WW2 was won and lost. Germany's armies were bled out against the sheer size of the Soviet Union and its military. Without the eastern front there would have been no D-Day. D-day was more like the final nail in the coffin.

Also Barbarossa wasn't a battle as such, it was the name for a series of German Assaults into the Soviet Union. In terms of actual battles on the Eastern front i would say Kursk or Stalingrad. Stalingrad halted the German's advance and sent Hitler livid, causing him to divert more and more troops into a useless meatgrinder. Kursk, the largest tank battle in the war was the final blow for Germany on the eastern front, after that they only fell back.

Also, D-Day was by no means just an American thing, not by a long shot. There appears to be this fallacy that America won WW2 for the allies, if anyone did it was Russia.

True for the last part, but no one considers the front with Japan, which might have caused major problems with the European Allies if the Americans didn't push them back with the small help from England, I have said that so many times I feel like I believe America did do all the work (Which I do not.) and am just clinging to the only major thing that America did...

Also, D-Day would never have happened without America, you fail to remember that Eisenhower planned it.

D-day also never would have happened without an independent Britain. Britain acted as an unsinkable air craft carrier and was necessary for supplies and the logistics train. If Britain had not been independent there would have been no D-Day. Shipping troops and supplies, and keeping them supplied all the way from America to france would have been unfeasible. Britain was necessary, there was a huge amount of preparation done for D-day. Massive floating pontoons for naval supplies were constructed, huge piplelines etc. Eisenhower didn't solely plan it, it was an operation planned and carried out in joint with Britain.

America did do well in the pacific theater i'll give you that (though again not by themselves with Australia's help- go look up the kokoda track for example).

That is true about Britain, I did not say America could do it alone with Britain's various territories.

America was still like the Russia of the Pacific, and I think Australia was part of England.

 

[The Epicosity]

Most Americans want to say D-Day, even though the American beaches were just a fraction of the full offensive.
I never understood why Americans like to bring up D-Day all the time, and be like "WE KICKED SO MUCH ASS!".
Compared to the UK and Canadian beaches, the Americans had the easier beaches, lost the most lives, and took the least ground.
So I don't even.

I hate my fellow Americans for so many reasons like this.

 

[Pierce Graham]

Regardless, the USA and the USSR could have won the war on their own. It just would have taken longer.

 

[sahwar]

Please, there is no contest.

The eastern front is where WW2 was won and lost. Germany's armies were bled out against the sheer size of the Soviet Union and its military. Without the eastern front there would have been no D-Day. D-day was more like the final nail in the coffin.

Also Barbarossa wasn't a battle as such, it was the name for a series of German Assaults into the Soviet Union. In terms of actual battles on the Eastern front i would say Kursk or Stalingrad. Stalingrad halted the German's advance and sent Hitler livid, causing him to divert more and more troops into a useless meatgrinder. Kursk, the largest tank battle in the war was the final blow for Germany on the eastern front, after that they only fell back.

Also, D-Day was by no means just an American thing, not by a long shot. There appears to be this fallacy that America won WW2 for the allies, if anyone did it was Russia.

I agree with this completely (factually, although being an Eastern European the aftermath of the war for Eastern Europe were horrible in perspective). The Eastern front was the one which made the greatest contribution to the Allies' victory with its sheer scope and soldiers involved.

D-Day was just the expected final blow in an already mostly lost war for the Axis powers. Oh and don't forget the Pacific and the African fronts. The nuclear bombings essentially speeded the end of the war and greatly demoralised the Japanese.

War is not about who is right, it's about who is left, as they say. And the Allied victory of WW2 was only a prelude to the Cold War, which in turn foreshadowed the current globalised corporatism, paving the roads for the totalitarian pseudo-democracy of today and tomorrow (probably). The future looks quite bleak... well, let's live to see where this all leads...

 

[christmasbats]

It is religion and weather that won it for the Russians, the fact that Hitler is one of the worst tacticians to have ever lived that lost it for the Germans, the african campaign that lost it for the italians and the battle of the atlantic that won it for all. The fact that there were two fronts were neither here nor there because before D-Day, Germany was already on fighting on two fronts - Russia and Italy.

 

[scott91575]

Russia was the only country that got invaded by the Nazis that didn't need someone to bail them out.

There is a strong case to be made that the Allied war (mostly US led) vs. Japan (brought on by oil) saved the Russians from fighting on two major fronts. So in a way, they did have help. There was no doubt that Japan was looking to take control of Eastern Russia, but did not have the oil reserves needed to do so. So they attacked the US over the oil issue, and that led to a full defensive stance by the Japanese (outside of the initial attacks) instead of further expansion that would have no doubt included The Soviet Union.

Certainly the Japanese would have been overmatched during ground warfare vs. Russia. Yet without Allied involvement the Japanese could have used the Soviet battle with Germany to their advantage, and turned the tide of the war overall.

So to say Russia did not have any help is saying so in a vacuum. The Soviets had lots of help in the fact the Allies forced one foe to fight on two fronts and completely occupied the other foe on the Soviet Union's other front.

I only read a little of this thread, but people completely forget the Allies did not just fight Germany. The Pacific Theater was brutal, and took up much of the Allied forces (especially the US forces). The Soviet Union had little involvement even though they were right there. Instead the US, Canada, Australia, China, the UK, and the Netherlands fought a war right near the Soviet border. The Soviets didn't even really become involved until 1945 once the atomic bombs were dropped and the war with Japan was essentially over.

 

[The Epicosity]

It is religion and weather that won it for the Russians, the fact that Hitler is one of the worst tacticians to have ever lived that lost it for the Germans, the african campaign that lost it for the italians and the battle of the atlantic that won it for all. The fact that there were two fronts were neither here nor there because before D-Day, Germany was already on fighting on two fronts - Russia and Italy.

Italy wasn't much of a front, sure, they had men there, but it was an afterthought to the war with Russia, and Religion is not relevant to Russia's win, the weather wasn't even the full reason for them losing, and Hitler is not the worst tactician who ever lived, I believe you are looking for someone like Vlad the Impaler, who doesn't have a strategy and goes in swinging. Hitler got cocky, which a lot of tacticians do, even the greatest, such as Robert E. Lee.

 

[scott91575]

It is religion and weather that won it for the Russians, the fact that Hitler is one of the worst tacticians to have ever lived that lost it for the Germans, the african campaign that lost it for the italians and the battle of the atlantic that won it for all. The fact that there were two fronts were neither here nor there because before D-Day, Germany was already on fighting on two fronts - Russia and Italy.

Italy wasn't much of a front, sure, they had men there, but it was an afterthought to the war with Russia, and Religion is not relevant to Russia's win, the weather wasn't even the full reason for them losing, and Hitler is not the worst tactician who ever lived, I believe you are looking for someone like Vlad the Impaler, who doesn't have a strategy and goes in swinging. Hitler got cocky, which a lot of tacticians do, even the greatest, such as Robert E. Lee.

Well, there is some middle ground. Hitler did make a huge mistake on the Eastern front, but was not the worst tactician (there is a theory he suffered from Syphilis in the latter stages of the war). I am doing this from memory, so bear with me if I make a few mistakes. Anyway, he waited for the Southern flank to catch up to the rest of the troops. That led Germany to fight a war vs. Russia in the middle of Winter, one they were ill equipped for. If he would have simply allowed his troops to attack without waiting, Salingrad would probably have been taken easily.

As for religion, The Soviet Union did essentially try to destroy religion. They took over the Orthodox church (while killing thousands) in hopes to eventually eliminate all religion (the opium of the people as Lenin put it). Yet once war came, they used religion to motivate people to fight. For the first time in over a decade, the church numbers grew and the Soviets used religion to fuel their war effort. Not sure if I would make it out to be a huge thing, but it was part of the Soviet propaganda that drove people to fight.

 

[commodore96]

Assuming the battle of Stalingrad is in Operation Barborossa I would have to go with that. However it was a World War so the Battle of Stalingrad is easily tied with the Battle of Midway as being the most important for an allied victory.

 

[The Epicosity]

It is religion and weather that won it for the Russians, the fact that Hitler is one of the worst tacticians to have ever lived that lost it for the Germans, the african campaign that lost it for the italians and the battle of the atlantic that won it for all. The fact that there were two fronts were neither here nor there because before D-Day, Germany was already on fighting on two fronts - Russia and Italy.

Italy wasn't much of a front, sure, they had men there, but it was an afterthought to the war with Russia, and Religion is not relevant to Russia's win, the weather wasn't even the full reason for them losing, and Hitler is not the worst tactician who ever lived, I believe you are looking for someone like Vlad the Impaler, who doesn't have a strategy and goes in swinging. Hitler got cocky, which a lot of tacticians do, even the greatest, such as Robert E. Lee.

Well, there is some middle ground. Hitler did make a huge mistake in one the Eastern front, but was not the worst tactician. I am doing this from memory, so bear with me if I make a few mistakes. Anyway, he waited for the Southern flank to catch up to the rest of the troops. That led Germany to fight a war vs. Russia in the middle of Winter, one they were ill equipped for. If he would have simply allowed his troops to attack without waiting, Salingrad would probably have been taken easily.

As for religion, The Soviet Union did essentially try to destroy religion. They took over the Orthodox church (while killing thousands) in hopes to eventually eliminate all religion (the opium of the people as Lenin put it). Yet once war came, they used religion to motivate people to fight. For the first time in over a decade, the church numbers grew and the Soviets used religion to fuel their war effort. Not sure if I would make it out to be a huge thing, but it was part of the Soviet propaganda that drove people to fight.

Yes, Hitler was not the best or really the worst, even though he was smart enough to go along with blitzkrieg. I don't think that that religion thing WON them the war, or I would have heard off it, of course. *Smugface of cockyness*, they had drafting and one step back gets you shot (According to every movie made by Americans about Russia in WWII evar.), good enough for me.

 

[devotedsniper]

I'm not a major history buff but i would like to point out to our american allies, that us british may have had less numbers than you come D day but your forgetting 2 valuable points; 1) we had been fighting for years already and had lost many men, and 2) your alot bigger than us (look at a map if you don't believe me) it's only logical you have more soldiers than us (although if post 73's facts are correct you only had just over 11k more than us come D day).

I personally prefer to look at it as a chain of events which allowed us to win rather than what battle was the most instrumental, we all played our parts enough said really. Personally if i had to pick a battle or event i'd say it would be the fact the little islands which form the UK decided they wouldn't stand for it to be honest (not favourtism just how i feel), if the UK had just let them take over, the world would probably be alot different.

 

[TomK]

between those two its barbarossa without a doubt. The Russians held up hitler for like 3 years while America got its act together and England realized that one cannot win a war by repeating dunkirk over and over. also at a certain pint i believe there were something around 158 german divisions on the eastern front, meanwhile there were like 3 in north Africa and it still took the US and Britain the better part of a year to kick those bastards out.

 

[Purple Shrimp]

D-Day was the turning point in the war

...No? That would be The Battle of Stalingrad, where the Russians essentially captured an entire army as prisoners of war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad
Read up. This is in fact probably the best place to put a "turning point in the war" marker. This was where Germany started getting driven out of Russia and towards their own front. It was a complete rout.

its totally el alamein

 

[scott91575]

It is religion and weather that won it for the Russians, the fact that Hitler is one of the worst tacticians to have ever lived that lost it for the Germans, the african campaign that lost it for the italians and the battle of the atlantic that won it for all. The fact that there were two fronts were neither here nor there because before D-Day, Germany was already on fighting on two fronts - Russia and Italy.

Italy wasn't much of a front, sure, they had men there, but it was an afterthought to the war with Russia, and Religion is not relevant to Russia's win, the weather wasn't even the full reason for them losing, and Hitler is not the worst tactician who ever lived, I believe you are looking for someone like Vlad the Impaler, who doesn't have a strategy and goes in swinging. Hitler got cocky, which a lot of tacticians do, even the greatest, such as Robert E. Lee.

Well, there is some middle ground. Hitler did make a huge mistake in one the Eastern front, but was not the worst tactician. I am doing this from memory, so bear with me if I make a few mistakes. Anyway, he waited for the Southern flank to catch up to the rest of the troops. That led Germany to fight a war vs. Russia in the middle of Winter, one they were ill equipped for. If he would have simply allowed his troops to attack without waiting, Salingrad would probably have been taken easily.

As for religion, The Soviet Union did essentially try to destroy religion. They took over the Orthodox church (while killing thousands) in hopes to eventually eliminate all religion (the opium of the people as Lenin put it). Yet once war came, they used religion to motivate people to fight. For the first time in over a decade, the church numbers grew and the Soviets used religion to fuel their war effort. Not sure if I would make it out to be a huge thing, but it was part of the Soviet propaganda that drove people to fight.

Yes, Hitler was not the best or really the worst, even though he was smart enough to go along with blitzkrieg. I don't think that that religion thing WON them the war, or I would have heard off it, of course. *Smugface of cockyness*, they had drafting and one step back gets you shot (According to every movie made by Americans about Russia in WWII evar.), good enough for me.

Well, it's not really a movie thing. The Soviets did deploy sharpshooters behind their lines to kill any deserters (which were essentially troops that tried to retreat not under order). Retreat was literally not an option for Soviet troops.

 

[imperialreign]

Barbarossa - although major, was an ongoing campaign . . . and seeing as how we're looking for "battles" here: I've got to go with Stalingrad as well . . . it turned out to be one of the most pivital points in the war.


TBH, though, if it wasn't for Hitler breaking the truce with Stalin, the war could've turned out quite differently . . .

 

[Commissar Sae]

It is religion and weather that won it for the Russians, the fact that Hitler is one of the worst tacticians to have ever lived that lost it for the Germans, the african campaign that lost it for the italians and the battle of the atlantic that won it for all. The fact that there were two fronts were neither here nor there because before D-Day, Germany was already on fighting on two fronts - Russia and Italy.

Italy wasn't much of a front, sure, they had men there, but it was an afterthought to the war with Russia, and Religion is not relevant to Russia's win, the weather wasn't even the full reason for them losing, and Hitler is not the worst tactician who ever lived, I believe you are looking for someone like Vlad the Impaler, who doesn't have a strategy and goes in swinging. Hitler got cocky, which a lot of tacticians do, even the greatest, such as Robert E. Lee.

Well, there is some middle ground. Hitler did make a huge mistake in one the Eastern front, but was not the worst tactician. I am doing this from memory, so bear with me if I make a few mistakes. Anyway, he waited for the Southern flank to catch up to the rest of the troops. That led Germany to fight a war vs. Russia in the middle of Winter, one they were ill equipped for. If he would have simply allowed his troops to attack without waiting, Salingrad would probably have been taken easily.

As for religion, The Soviet Union did essentially try to destroy religion. They took over the Orthodox church (while killing thousands) in hopes to eventually eliminate all religion (the opium of the people as Lenin put it). Yet once war came, they used religion to motivate people to fight. For the first time in over a decade, the church numbers grew and the Soviets used religion to fuel their war effort. Not sure if I would make it out to be a huge thing, but it was part of the Soviet propaganda that drove people to fight.

Yes, Hitler was not the best or really the worst, even though he was smart enough to go along with blitzkrieg. I don't think that that religion thing WON them the war, or I would have heard off it, of course. *Smugface of cockyness*, they had drafting and one step back gets you shot (According to every movie made by Americans about Russia in WWII evar.), good enough for me.

Well, it's not really a movie thing. The Soviets did deploy sharpshooters behind their lines to kill any deserters. Retreat was literally not an option for Soviet troops.

Yeah Stalin passed an order against any retreat being viewed as deserters and summarily executed, or drafted into penal battalions. I honestly think the penal battalions were a worse fate. I mean you get all the crap jobs like mine clearing (via mass charge) and are given the worst equipment around.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

The failure of Operation Barbarossa prevented Nazi Germany from consolidating fully onto the Brits and keeping America completely out of Europe. While D-Day was vastly important, the USSR was probably the single most important country in stopping Germany, as it tied her down into a two front war, which is what they had tried,, and were nearly successful at avoiding.

 

[JMeganSnow]

In fact, if you look at the allied war planning documents in the time leading up to D-Day the primary concern was not defeating Germany, but rather checking the Russian advance. I believe it was Montgomery who said something about preventing the Russians from "Picknicking in the Riviera".

Not least because the Soviets were doing some serious looting. But, yes, there was serious worry about keeping the Soviets out of Europe. Did they succeed? Nyet. The East Germany/West Germany Soviet Bloc thing was a horrible mess for many years.

It has led to the current U.S. foreign policy of assaulting countries who aren't much of a threat, then building a bunch of roads/bridges/horribly ugly buildings and wandering away, while speaking angrily at the countries that are a threat in the hopes that they will eventually implode and spare us from having to make good on any of our "threats".

Somedays it amazes me that we're still here.

 

[scott91575]

It is religion and weather that won it for the Russians, the fact that Hitler is one of the worst tacticians to have ever lived that lost it for the Germans, the african campaign that lost it for the italians and the battle of the atlantic that won it for all. The fact that there were two fronts were neither here nor there because before D-Day, Germany was already on fighting on two fronts - Russia and Italy.

Italy wasn't much of a front, sure, they had men there, but it was an afterthought to the war with Russia, and Religion is not relevant to Russia's win, the weather wasn't even the full reason for them losing, and Hitler is not the worst tactician who ever lived, I believe you are looking for someone like Vlad the Impaler, who doesn't have a strategy and goes in swinging. Hitler got cocky, which a lot of tacticians do, even the greatest, such as Robert E. Lee.

Well, there is some middle ground. Hitler did make a huge mistake in one the Eastern front, but was not the worst tactician. I am doing this from memory, so bear with me if I make a few mistakes. Anyway, he waited for the Southern flank to catch up to the rest of the troops. That led Germany to fight a war vs. Russia in the middle of Winter, one they were ill equipped for. If he would have simply allowed his troops to attack without waiting, Salingrad would probably have been taken easily.

As for religion, The Soviet Union did essentially try to destroy religion. They took over the Orthodox church (while killing thousands) in hopes to eventually eliminate all religion (the opium of the people as Lenin put it). Yet once war came, they used religion to motivate people to fight. For the first time in over a decade, the church numbers grew and the Soviets used religion to fuel their war effort. Not sure if I would make it out to be a huge thing, but it was part of the Soviet propaganda that drove people to fight.

Yes, Hitler was not the best or really the worst, even though he was smart enough to go along with blitzkrieg. I don't think that that religion thing WON them the war, or I would have heard off it, of course. *Smugface of cockyness*, they had drafting and one step back gets you shot (According to every movie made by Americans about Russia in WWII evar.), good enough for me.

Well, it's not really a movie thing. The Soviets did deploy sharpshooters behind their lines to kill any deserters. Retreat was literally not an option for Soviet troops.

Yeah Stalin passed an order against any retreat being viewed as deserters and summarily executed, or drafted into penal battalions. I honestly think the penal battalions were a worse fate. I mean you get all the crap jobs like mine clearing (via mass charge) and are given the worst equipment around.

Every time I think about that stuff I think of that great stage in Call of Duty

 

[Commissar Sae]

It is religion and weather that won it for the Russians, the fact that Hitler is one of the worst tacticians to have ever lived that lost it for the Germans, the african campaign that lost it for the italians and the battle of the atlantic that won it for all. The fact that there were two fronts were neither here nor there because before D-Day, Germany was already on fighting on two fronts - Russia and Italy.

Italy wasn't much of a front, sure, they had men there, but it was an afterthought to the war with Russia, and Religion is not relevant to Russia's win, the weather wasn't even the full reason for them losing, and Hitler is not the worst tactician who ever lived, I believe you are looking for someone like Vlad the Impaler, who doesn't have a strategy and goes in swinging. Hitler got cocky, which a lot of tacticians do, even the greatest, such as Robert E. Lee.

Well, there is some middle ground. Hitler did make a huge mistake in one the Eastern front, but was not the worst tactician. I am doing this from memory, so bear with me if I make a few mistakes. Anyway, he waited for the Southern flank to catch up to the rest of the troops. That led Germany to fight a war vs. Russia in the middle of Winter, one they were ill equipped for. If he would have simply allowed his troops to attack without waiting, Salingrad would probably have been taken easily.

As for religion, The Soviet Union did essentially try to destroy religion. They took over the Orthodox church (while killing thousands) in hopes to eventually eliminate all religion (the opium of the people as Lenin put it). Yet once war came, they used religion to motivate people to fight. For the first time in over a decade, the church numbers grew and the Soviets used religion to fuel their war effort. Not sure if I would make it out to be a huge thing, but it was part of the Soviet propaganda that drove people to fight.

Yes, Hitler was not the best or really the worst, even though he was smart enough to go along with blitzkrieg. I don't think that that religion thing WON them the war, or I would have heard off it, of course. *Smugface of cockyness*, they had drafting and one step back gets you shot (According to every movie made by Americans about Russia in WWII evar.), good enough for me.

Well, it's not really a movie thing. The Soviets did deploy sharpshooters behind their lines to kill any deserters. Retreat was literally not an option for Soviet troops.

Yeah Stalin passed an order against any retreat being viewed as deserters and summarily executed, or drafted into penal battalions. I honestly think the penal battalions were a worse fate. I mean you get all the crap jobs like mine clearing (via mass charge) and are given the worst equipment around.

Every time I think about that stuff I think of that great stage in Call of Duty

Yeah that was pretty cool, would hate to actually live that mind you.