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

[_alexisneverlate_]

The pacific war was indeed significant investment that US made into victory.

Answer on some comments.
The IL2 plane was specifically built for ground attack, and it was the best ground attack plane in the war (once returned with 600+ direct hits). Thunderbolt was a fighter.

USA\Allies supplied russia with some advanced fighter planes, as well as with a lot of other stuff - lendlease was quite crucial, although mostly in rare materials, than in actual war machines.

Saying that russians fought only themselves is of course wrong. It is called a WORLD war for a reason. But in _europan theatre_, they indeed made obviously the biggest impact, had the fiercest and the longest battles with most casualties on both sides etc etc. (as i mentioned before 90% to 10% in casualties eastern to western front)

If he would have simply allowed his troops to attack without waiting, Salingrad would probably have been taken easily.

Or the attacking forces would have been surrounded? (why there was that halt on that southern front on first place). You never know...

As for winter - well, of course german suffered. But they were demoralised because of not winning fast, as in france etc. and not only because of winter. It would be plain wrong to say, that winter won the war, and russians enjoyed it. The experienced and trained "for winter" troops were already PoW or dead by the time winter came. Winter is just an excuse for germans mostly (that went straight into european history books). Russians had to fight in the same harsh conditions. It was not the winter, but the people who fought and died.

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.

That is BS. No one ever fired to the backs of their own people. These squads were less than 1% of the army and they were mainly catching deserters between battles etc.
I wonder why there are no bears drinking vodka during the assault in that really historically accurate movie. That is indeed what happened at that time!

(P.S. 1 rifle per 5 people was also a laughable moment, since that unit was in reality an _elite_ reinforcements unit, that crossed the river in pure daylight and fire in self sacrifice, to help defending troops , to win at a really crucial point of the battle)

 

[scott91575]

The pacific war was indeed significant investment that US made into victory.

Answer on some comments.
The IL2 plane was specifically built for ground attack, and it was the best ground attack plane in the war (once returned with 600+ direct hits). Thunderbolt was a fighter.

USA\Allies supplied russia with some advanced fighter planes, as well as with a lot of other stuff - lendlease was quite crucial, although mostly in rare materials, than in actual war machines.

Saying that russians fought only themselves is of course wrong. It is called a WORLD war for a reason. But in _europan theatre_, they indeed made obviously the biggest impact, had the fiercest and the longest battles with most casualties on both sides etc etc. (as i mentioned before 90% to 10% in casualties eastern to western front)

If he would have simply allowed his troops to attack without waiting, Salingrad would probably have been taken easily.

Or the attacking forces would have been surrounded? (why there was that halt on that southern front on first place). You never know...

As for winter - well, of course german suffered. But they were demoralised because of not winning fast, as in france etc. and not only because of winter. It would be plain wrong to say, that winter won the war, and russians enjoyed it. The experienced and trained "for winter" troops were already PoW or dead by the time winter came. Winter is just an excuse for germans mostly (that went straight into european history books). Russians had to fight in the same harsh conditions. It was not the winter, but the people who fought and died.

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.

That is BS. No one ever fired to the backs of their own people. These squads were less than 1% of the army and they were mainly catching deserters between battles etc.
I wonder why there are no bears drinking vodka during the assault. That is indeed what happened at that time!

It's not BS. The Russians are well known for their "barrier troops." They used them for a long time, and expanded the use in WW2. After the Stavka Directive 1919, every Red Army regiment had an entire company act as an anti-retreat company. There were even more anti retreat directives given in further years. This is far from BS. Heck, in 1941 alone they detained over 1/2 million soldiers, and killed over 10,000.

edit: While a company may only make up 2% of a regiment (up to 5%), that is still a fair amount to essentially wait behind the lines for retreaters. Prior to the 1919 act, the barrier troops were simply looking for deserters as rail lines, major roads, etc. Yet after the act, each regiment literally had a company that did stand behind them and threatened any retreater/deserter with death.

 

[-Dragmire-]

Edit 2: Wow people actually voted for D-day? Holy fuck.... I'm sorry but this is really rage worthy if you have any passing interest in history.

yeah, I voted for D-Day before looking into and understanding the material(Same mistake I made during the last election...). Yes, I have a passing interest in history and I've read into it now, and would change my vote if I could.

Save your rage for the people who refuse to learn.

 

[_alexisneverlate_]

It's not BS. The Russians are well known for their "barrier troops." They used them for a long time, and expanded the use in WW2. After the Stavka Directive 1919, every Red Army division had an entire company act as an anti-retreat regiment. There were even more anti retreat directives given in further years. This is far from BS. Heck, in 1941 alone they detained over 1/2 million soldiers, and killed over 10,000.

Oh. You know numbers. Good.
1941 was the hardest year (6mln of the army lost.. retreating on all fronts.. not so nice). Exactly. Out of 600 000 caught deserters, 10 000 were shot... this is about 2% of all deserters. So, if you run, you have a 2% to be shot as a traitor afterwards. (And these are harsh war times). Others were reformed and sent to other units.

These squads were monitoring the deserters and helping the back-logistics etc. They were stationed on the roads behind the army. And not in the middle of the battle. Mostly they were organising the flood of retreating people or troops, that lost organisation to new units - so that was rather a crucial element in these dark times, preventing collapse of a retreating army.

A comissar shooting his own troops from a machinegun goes somewhere to Warhammer 40 000 universe. (FOr tha empraaaah...!!!)

I am not saying soviet forces and communists were angels (which they were not), but war (as well as the cold-war) created a lot of legends, which many are only too happy to support.

 

[scott91575]

It's not BS. The Russians are well known for their "barrier troops." They used them for a long time, and expanded the use in WW2. After the Stavka Directive 1919, every Red Army division had an entire company act as an anti-retreat regiment. There were even more anti retreat directives given in further years. This is far from BS. Heck, in 1941 alone they detained over 1/2 million soldiers, and killed over 10,000.

Oh. You know numbers. Good.
1941 was the hardest year (6mln of the army lost.. not so nice). Exactly. Out of 600 000 caught deserters, 10 000 were shot... this is about 2% of all deserters. So, if you run, you have a 2% to be shot as a traitor afterwards. (And these are harsh war times). Others were reformed and sent to other units.

These squads were monitoring the deserters and helping the back-logistics etc. They were stationed on the roads behind the army. And not in the middle of the battle. Mostly they were organising the flood of retreating people or troops, that lost organisation to new units - so that was rather a crucial element in these dark times.

A comissar shooting his own troops from a machinegun goes somewhere to Warhammer 40 000 universe. (FOr tha empraaaah...!!!)

I am not saying soviet forces and communists were angels (which they were not), but war created a lot of legends, which many are only too happy to support.

If you think killing 10,000 of your own troops in one year is trivial, well, I guess we disagree on this whole thing. Many more were incarcerated (who often died do to that fact), and it was not simply desertion. It was retreating. In comparison, only 1 US soldier was ever executed for desertion during WW2.

While it was not a mass killing, retreating from the battlefield for the Soviets was a rather risky proposition. And yes, there were times retreating troops were literally gunned down while fleeing the battlefield.

 

[Frankster]

The experienced and trained "for winter" troops were already PoW or dead by the time winter came. Winter is just an excuse for germans mostly (that went straight into european history books). Russians had to fight in the same harsh conditions. It was not the winter, but the people who fought and died.

No, au contraire. The ski bataillons including elite units and others that were on the Japanese border had been pulled back and were there to spearhead the attack.
Those brand new tanks russians had been making? Ready to roll. The winter gave them time to build a fresh wave of reinforcements for the beleaguered defenders.

By contrast the germans were having major equipment troubles, that is not BS.
They could barely get their tanks to work, guns weren't working probably, plus the effects of the cold (factors you named such as being demoralized by such a long campaign are also true).

If source needed since can't pull documentaries out just like that, from wiki on eastern front in the Soviet offensive of winter 1941 in Moscow "The new Soviet troops were prepared for winter warfare, and they included several ski battalions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_%28World_War_II%29

The winter really did mess up the germans and left them somewhat vulnerable.
The russians on the other side suffered just as much, it is true, but they had shiny new reinforcements all decked out with latest gear and a thrist for vengeance.

Yes, I have a passing interest in history and I've read into it now, and would change my vote if I could.

Save your rage for the people who refuse to learn.

Yey, you can be salvaged
Don't mind my overdramatization, if people on this site can lose faith in humanity over others not getting the right answer on those 1+1+1+1x0 facebook thingies, then I figured i got the right to be a drama queen over this. It is in the same league of blunder.

 

[_alexisneverlate_]

No, i dont think it is trivial. That year was the only year, when these numbers were so high. (never again the soviet army retreated in such numbers later, though battles were fierce)

I do think they were mostly shooting the deserters, not the retreating units.

It was within the moral of that time and place (shooting "traitors", those who panic and lead the whole unit to panic), and from that point of view that was effective way of stopping attempts of mass desertion. Which, ultimately, could lead to holding the lines and victory, however terrible that might seem to us. I have picked up some statistics - after 1941 it was less than 1% of shot deserters.
I doubt that eastern front is comparible to the US of that time. In russia common people (basically every male person of 16-45) had to fight, in US during the world war 2, if i am not mistaken - only volunteers; highly trained etc, therefore the general morale level should have been quite higher. And since most of the population was not busy dying in battles, they could have afforded to put some more people in prison, could they?

 

[thethingthatlurks]

Wow, quite a stupid thread...
Alright, first things first: Barbarossa was an operation, not a single battle. On that note, the comparison between the Normandy landings and one of the more devastating battles on the eastern front, Kursk or Stalingrad, would have been better. That said, even if the comparison had been Stalingrad/Kursk vs Normandy, the eastern front would still have been more important. Since the original question was which "battle" had a greater impact on Germany's defeat, the answer will always be in the east. Sorry yanks (and Brits/Ausies/neighbors to the north), Normandy was of no importance in that regard. That said, the allied bombing raids were quite important, but even if they hadn't taken place (say if Germany had won the Battle of Britain followed by a successful invasion), the soviets would still have won if Barbarossa had taken place (plus greater soviet preparedness, since the excuse for stationing so many troops along the german/polish-soviet border was the supposed fear of allied bombings). It's quite simple, the numerical advantage, both in manpower and in supplies, could not have been overcome. It would have been a very long and very bloody war if the allies hadn't shipped supplies over, but even then the soviets would have won. Sorry, no changing that, might as well tone your patriotism down a bit. Different answer for the pacific theater, of course.

But here's a better answer to the question: Hitler's policies. If that idiot hadn't insisted on a policy of racial superiority and repression (especially against slavs in this case), and even more importantly, had he employed a type of liberation from the evil communist dictator policy, Germany would have won in the east. Stalin was widely unpopular, and the only thing that really kept him in power was the fact that the nazis didn't take kindly to non-germans for some demented reason. Stalin and his ilk were the lesser of two evils, which allowed him to remain in power, and more importantly to field a strong and determined army in the Great Patriotic War. That's what my high school history teacher (AP/honers-something, I forgot) used to say, and I tend to agree.

 

[Megahedron]

Was anyone here actually taught wars in school? And no, that's not snark, because I never was. We always spent days talking about the cultural climate that led up to the war, and the political ideologies that were clashing, and the increasing nationalism as things revved up, but we never went into things like specific battles or different campaigns, just general who was on which side and how many people died. Which I totally agree with, the specifics of the battles themselves isn't really important to know as much as the political and cultural stuff behind it. My point being, when you people complain about not being taught about what offensive was more instrumental in deciding the wars outcome... I don't really think that's a big deal. At all. The problem comes when we pick up our information from other sources, in this case Medal of Honor, and that's how we decide which half was more important (the one we know more about). And I'd also like to note that probably half of the Americans in this thread do recognize that the Soviets made a greater contribution to the war than we did, and that the Allies weren't just the Americans, and so on, so we don't all get these things wrong. But it isn't the school system's fault for not teaching us something we really don't need to know.

Or maybe I just went to a more progressive school system and some of you were actually taught this stuff... I don't know.

Though I'd like it noted: during the entire Cold War, why would we have taught our children that the great evil that stood posed to destroy our way of life at the slightest sign of weakness was the same force that defeated the Nazis? That would have been poor politics...

 

[Kinguendo]

So where's the Battle of Britain and North Africa?

Don't get me wrong D-Day (and the landings in Italy beforehand) was an extremely important UNITED operation in the war, but before then the three major battles (Stalingrad, BoB, North Africa) where what finally stopped the German advance on all fronts. If Russia, Britain or North Africa had fallen then no amount of intervention from the other side of the Atlantic would have made any difference.

It's pretty much this.

And as a German I'd say that the "downfall of Germany" was when the NSDAP took the power and turned the country into a fascistic dictatorship. However something like this and a following war was inevitable due to the way Germany was treated by the allies after the first world war.

Well now, lets be fair. Germany created the "Dolchstosslegende" in response to the fact that the allied front didnt waltz in to Germany and do some redecorating and because of their pride they could not admit that they were simply beaten and signed a treaty declaring that the entire thing was Germanys fault... which fuelled the hatred of Jews and Socialists leading up to World War Two and its accompanying Nazi attrocities. Lets not forget, the Nazis were voted into power.

Now, having said that I would undoubtadly have been on the side of the conscientious objectors in Britain and as a result would probably have been sent to prison and refused employment after the war based on the fact that I refused to participate in a war were my country caused the deaths of 750,000 German civilians through blockades. There were no winners or "good" guys in the first world war when you look at the scope of things, each side commited attrocities. But to say that World War Two was inevitable because of the allies treatment of Germany is to overlook the things Germany did during and after World War One, that time period is a very dark time for your people who were not the progressive and caring people they have shown themselves to be today.

 

[funguy2121]

Iwo Jima. Or Gettysburg.

Oh, I see. Sorry.

I think Hitler probably first started to consider offing himself when the allies invaded Normandy, but I'm not even an armchair WW2 expert, so I could be wrong.

Wait, Gettysburg? *Facepalm*

Gen X humor is built on irony. You, sir, must be a Y.

 

[jumjalalabash]

Pretty sure that Stalingrad was the main turning point. Germans screwed themselves in the east, fought and lost over a rather pointless city, and couldn't reach a region of oil that they were originally heading to instead.

 

[Greatjusticeman]

From the way I see it, it kind of goes both ways.

With allies landing at D-Day, this brought the war to two fronts which Hitler could not handle. He screwed himself by attacking Russia. Had he not done that, things would've ended differently.

But basically, with the allies pushing on one front, and the Russian beast at another. We soon converged like PB&J and everyone was smiles and joy.

Then the Americans and Russians were like, "LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL now i'm serious'd." And began aiming nukes at eachother.

 

[ediblemitten]

Ruskies won the war for us. Don't you forget it mates.

 

[Officer Crayon]

So where's the Battle of Britain and North Africa?

Don't get me wrong D-Day (and the landings in Italy beforehand) was an extremely important UNITED operation in the war, but before then the three major battles (Stalingrad, BoB, North Africa) where what finally stopped the German advance on all fronts. If Russia, Britain or North Africa had fallen then no amount of intervention from the other side of the Atlantic would have made any difference.

Really the only thing about this statement is why the germans lost north Africa. while rommel was doing everything in his power to stop the allies, hitler wouldnt send him enough supplies. all of the supplies were being almost entirely on russia, a fatal move as it turned out.
for this, rommel lost el alamein and consequently north africa.
rommel was furious about what hitler had done to him. it is most commonly beleived that rommel was so pissed about this that he conspired to kill hitler. it was said that he, the desert fox, was the leader of operation Valkyrie. Mostly speculation now, but could have turned out to be true

 

[imperialus]

Also, by the time we hit June of 44 Germany was done. There was no way they could reverse the momentum on the eastern front and indeed many of the troops involved in fighting the allies (at least until they hit the Rhine) were second tier garrison units at best. When the Germans did put their first tier units up against the allies we got soundly thrashed on every occasion battle of the Bulge, Market Garden ect.

Let's see... The SS Panzer Lehr, the SS Hitlerjugend, the SS Panzergrenadier Götz von Berlichingen, the SS Adolf Hitler, and the SS Das Reich. Yup - all second tier garrison forces there.
There were of course a lot of Ost Battalions fighting, but on the whole it's extremely doubtful that the Allied victory in France was in any way due to superior fighting capabilities, as opposed to simply having a massive advantage in terms of money, equipment, and men.

Well, Panzer Lehr (which was not an SS unit) was an odd unit... In theory it was the best of the best, but it was only formed in 43 and it was mainly a training unit so it tended to have some of the best commanders in the Wehrmacht but also some of the greenest recruits. The SS Hitlerjugend was another odd duck. It was made up of 16 - 18 year olds, who were notable for their fanaticism, but had a distinct lack of combat experience. SS Gotz von Berlichingen was a unit that was formed in 43, mostly from French volunteers and conscripts. Normandy was the first combat that they ever saw.

That leaves us with two real veteran units on the western front, the 1st SS Panzer (Adolph Hitler) and 2nd SS Panzer (Das Reich)...

Of the two Adolph Hitler was pulled out of the fighting on the Western Front in late 44 to turn around and fight the Soviets. Only Das Reich stayed put until the bitter end.

In terms of other armies you had the 5th, 7th and 12th. The 7th army had experience in the first year of the Russian offensive but they were moved into France after that and served as garrison troops for 3 years. The 12th army was garrison through and through. It never saw combat until the allies showed up on their doorstep. The 5th army actually had a fair bit of experience. They fought both the British and Americans in North Africa and were probably the scariest Wehrmacht force to face the allies. Of course their ace in the hole was Rommel and he killed himself which didn't do a whole lot for their combat effectiveness both in terms of moral and strategic ability.

 

[minus_273c]

Seelowe Dunkerque

You used the German spelling for Sealion and French spelling for Dunkirk...
:S

Well it was a German Operation and is a French town.

 

[Nexus4]

The idea that the outcome of WW2 was in any way dependent on a single battle is laughable. There are no heroes in a war, stop trying to make some up just because it fits better in your romantic storytelling.

I believe the question was 'which was more instrumental?' not 'which won the war?' Both played their roles in Germany's defeat, and the OP just wants opinions one which hurt them more. And I didn't see any mention of heroes or romantic stories from the OP either.

Anyway, OT: Barbarossa in my opinion. When the Germans smashed at Stalingrad and then pushed back, that was devastating both in losses and moral for the German side. D-Day assisted in the counter attack and forced a war on two fronts, but I think Barbarossa had the greater consequences.

 

[dyre]

Operation Barbarossa was a just a tiny bit more than one battle, but it was by far the more influential campaign, involving millions of Axis soldiers, while the D-Day landings involved just parts of a few German divisions, thanks to false intel sent to Germany.

Though, the Russians just replaced one tyrant with another when they liberated Eastern Europe...

 

[Duskwaith]

The Battle for Production was the battle that killed Germany before 1939 if I wanted to be cynical about this answer. Afterall despite the huge powerhouse that Germany was economic wise it was a brief twilight due to the huge waste of resources under the Reicheswerke Herman Goring. When Albert Speer stepped in in 1943(i think) he finally sorted out the German economy that had it had access to the proper materials and more time, was on track to out produce both the USSR and USA. Its complete lack of resources prevented any chance of a prolonged war, never mind a war on two/three fronts by 1944

As for the military campaign. A main theory behind the Blitzkrieg approach was simply that Germany couldnt bare a prolonged war due to its overheating economy therefore leading to any prolonged conflict totally messing the German system up.
By the time Barbarossa had stagnated due to the Russian winter the Germans had already began to come loose round the edges. 1/3 of German troops lacked sufficent artic gear to fight in the Russian winter not to mention Stalin managed to transport every factory out of the way of the German army using the most rediculous amounts of trains the world has ever seen. The scorched earth policy the Russians, brutally, imployed pretty much starved the Blitzkreig of fuel turning the likes of Stalingrad into a mixture of propoganda and strategic targets.

It should be noted that the Germans did have the upper hand when it came to battles, they did not have the stamina for a war. At the Battle of Kursk the dead or injured mounted to nearly 1 million men, mostly on the Russian side. Major difference? Russia replaced all those casulaties in one draft call, Germany couldnt. This is also true hardware wise, where in the German tanks where far more precision engineered, the Russian tanks had slopped sides and could be churned out so fast that during the Battle of Stalingrad tanks where rolling of the production line at the back of the city and driving straight into battle without as much as a lick of paint.

Compared to all that. D-Day was like a gloved slap in the face to the Axis powers that even then nearly failed for the allies, especially for the Americans due to their own lack of reliable hardware(losing most of the armour before it landed/deregard for flail tanks) that pretty much relied on Operation Tonga for success