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

[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.

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.

Yeah, I didn't think they had snipers. :/, seems more effective to use machine guns, even if that would take them away from the front...

 

[The Epicosity]

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?

They drafted in the US and were NOT highly trained, very badly trained, but trained none the least, better than most Russians.

 

[The Epicosity]

Wow, actually, according to wikipedia, not the most trusted source, 50 million people were drafted from 18 to 40 something in all of WWII by the US. Hrm... Just doesn't seem right.

 

[The Cheezy One]

[Not a qualified historian, this is stuff I picked up from war books and magazines my brother owns]

Barbarossa took a lot of supplies from Rommel in Africa, leading indirectly to the fall of German and Italian forces in Africa. This also helped supplies reach the island of Malta, assisting in the invasion of Italy. D-Day was nowhere near a second front. It must have been the fourth at least. Russia got lucky or skillful and developed a tank which they could produce moderately quickly to counter the infamous German armour. I am, of course, talking of the T34.

But another thing I heard from a historian (I don't know how accurate it is) - Hitler didn't expect us to fight him, once he turned on Russia. He thought we would decide that communism was a bigger threat. Which we did, but only after we had already beaten Germany.

Interesting fact - while games focus most on Omaha beach, an Anglo-Canadian force made the most gains of any of the 5 forces on their designated beach, Juno, having to hang back and wait for everyone else. Not sure if this is that they were really good (Commandos there, and who wants to mess with an angry Canadian?), or if the beach was more lightly defended or more easily traversible.

 

[The Cheezy One]

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.

[Disclaimer - I learned most of this from Commando comics [http://www.commandocomics.com/] and what my brother dredges up from Wiipedia]

Many of the German soldiers were equipped for Winter warfare, but who wants to trudge across the Ukraine in a fur coat in the middle of summer? They threw them away, and suffered for it. Later, they were shipped a cheap meat that their damaged bodies couldn't handle, and more died of consumption.

Also, the beseiged city of Leningrad was reinforced by troops and trucks crossing the lake, meaning the attacking forces were not wearing down a tired city, but fighting a relatively fresh one.

Also (again), it was Karl Marx who said Religion is the opiate of the masses (same thing as opium of the people). Sorry if this has already been pointed out to you. Other than that, full marx (hehe), as far as I am aware. I am also doing this from memory.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Stalingrad.

It turned the side on the Eastern Front, the Front that actually mattered in real life instead of American popcutlure.

 

[darth gditch]

No single battle won the War. I point to four big moments though. 1. The Battle of El Alamain and the Battles at Cassablanca, ensuring that Hitler would inevitably lose North Africa and the Middle East, cutting off fuel supplies. 2. The Battle of Stalingrad halted Hitler's foray into Russia and made sure he would never take Moscow or secure the far more important Caucus oil fields, further starving the Wehrmacht of fuel. 3. Conclusion of the Battle of the Atlantic, ensuring that supplies would flow from America's tremendous industrial base to where it was needed in Britain and Russia, giving the Allies a huge advantage in terms of supplies. 4. The Normandy invasions ensuring that Germany could not focus solely on defending it's eastern front.

EDIT:

I also want to point out that Lend-Lease did wonders for the Allies, it let most of the war material for Britain and the U.S.S.R. be manufactured in the U.S., which had the advantage of not be bombed and war torn. Without it, the War could have gone very differently.

I also completely forgot about the massive British and American air campaigns in Europe which were another eventual step towards victory.

 

[Kargathia]

Spoiler

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.

True, but you're mainly looking at paper facts there - which also say that few of the units were at full operational capability. Even fewer were capable of engaging straight away.

But we're talking comparisons here, and on a one-on-one basis these units were arguably better than their allied counterparts. With a few exceptions the entire U.S. army was greener than grass - and did not even have the advantage of experienced combat commanders.
The British partially saw action in Africa, but at least two of the veteran units weren't exactly doing well. The Black Watch started out embarrassingly bad, and the Desert Rats weren't exactly doing home runs either. (My memory on the other units that served in Africa is a bit hazy though). The entire British army was doing pretty badly for that matter, but it's debatable whether that was due to inexperienced units.
On an absolute basis the German troop quality wasn't perfect, and later on severly lacking supplies and reinforcements. But they did an excellent job with the limited means they had.

A side note here: the Leibstandart Adolf Hitler was pulled out when the battle for Normandy was all but decided. As we were discussing that particular battle I felt they were worth listing.
I can't fully remember whether the Panzer Lehr was an SS division, and I'm honestly just too lazy to do a fact check on something like that. Point was that when compared one-on-one with it's allied counterpart it'd definitely be the better unit.

Later, they were shipped a cheap meat that their damaged bodies couldn't handle, and more died of consumption.

Also, the beseiged city of Leningrad was reinforced by troops and trucks crossing the lake, meaning the attacking forces were not wearing down a tired city, but fighting a relatively fresh one.

The thing with the food was German command finding out that feeding starved troops with extra-nutrional and fat pastries was a pretty bad idea. With the best intentions they concentrated what their troops were lacking most in their diet, but they didn't realise that their bodies simply couldn't handle chunks of fat.

Are you referring to Stalingrad or Leningrad btw? Both involved a river/lake.

 

[BlueberryMUNCH]

I honestly don't want to generalise, and I mean absolutely no offence, but once again, this is a great demonstration of the naivety and misinformation American schoolkids are subjected to.
It really makes me angry. Americans didn't single handedly strut into Europe with their god army and win.

Sigh.

Anger aside, no battle really lost the war; the entire Russian campaign was a lost cause from the get-go. Should've looked back to Napoleon. Stalingrad was key, mind you. My grandfather was captured by the Russians, eek.

 

[Vandenberg1]

Battle That busted the Germans in Russia was Kirsk. BIGGEST TANK BATTLE EVERRRRR. Germans kicked ass as usual with their superior crews and tanks, but numbers and reliablity of T-34 of Russia was just enough to finally break em in the East. If won perhaps they could of sued for some peace since Russia could not sustain such losses (roughly 15 to 1 at the beginning!!) forevor. In the West, ever since the failed blitz of England 9thanks to effing Barborosa) there was no way of winning England which would would have put the U.S. at an awkward spot.

What about Canada?

...or Australia?

...or India?

Uhm... well what about Canada?

Australia? Good luck getting there with the Japanese still owning the land around it.

India?... really?.. Burma campaign was all British pretty much, and with England conquered how would they get there?

 

[imperialus]

Uhm... well what about Canada?

Australia? Good luck getting there with the Japanese still owning the land around it.

India?... really?.. Burma campaign was all British pretty much, and with England conquered how would they get there?

Canada liberated Holland and was critical in winning the North Sea campaign. Hell Canada was the only country other than England and the US that had independent command in Europe.

ANZAC stopped the Japanese advance in New Guinea and fought lockstep with the Americans throughout the Pacific theater in addition to their contributions to the North Africa campaign, and the European theater.

India... I gotta admit ignorance on most of India's contribution to WWII but a quick wiki search says that they committed 2.5 million troops to the conflict. I do know however is that the Indian's were definitely present at the battle of Monte Cassino.

Heck, if you ever want a lesson in just how international the war effort in Western Europe was, just look at the division level orders of battle for the allies at Monte Cassino. You had Indians, Canadians, Maori, New Zealanders, Australians, French, Poles, defecting Italians, Americans and British. Completely off topic but it occurs to me, could you imagine what a nightmare that would be to command? You'd need to speak 5 languages just to give everyone a freaking pep talk.

 

[imperialus]

True, but you're mainly looking at paper facts there - which also say that few of the units were at full operational capability. Even fewer were capable of engaging straight away.

But we're talking comparisons here, and on a one-on-one basis these units were arguably better than their allied counterparts. With a few exceptions the entire U.S. army was greener than grass - and did not even have the advantage of experienced combat commanders.
The British partially saw action in Africa, but at least two of the veteran units weren't exactly doing well. The Black Watch started out embarrassingly bad, and the Desert Rats weren't exactly doing home runs either. (My memory on the other units that served in Africa is a bit hazy though). The entire British army was doing pretty badly for that matter, but it's debatable whether that was due to inexperienced units.
On an absolute basis the German troop quality wasn't perfect, and later on severly lacking supplies and reinforcements. But they did an excellent job with the limited means they had.

A side note here: the Leibstandart Adolf Hitler was pulled out when the battle for Normandy was all but decided. As we were discussing that particular battle I felt they were worth listing.
I can't fully remember whether the Panzer Lehr was an SS division, and I'm honestly just too lazy to do a fact check on something like that. Point was that when compared one-on-one with it's allied counterpart it'd definitely be the better unit.

To circle back around to the original question though, do you think that the absence of any of those units had an effect on the outcome of the Eastern front? I'm claiming that with the exception of Das Reich, the Germans committed no forces to fighting the allies that weren't there anyhow. Ultimately its a fairly straight forward pair of scenarios.

The first scenario is the one that actually happened. The allies invaded, and the Germans unsuccessfully defended their territory in France with a combination of the 5th, 7th, and 12th armies which included the 1st, 2nd, and 12th SS Panzer divisions.

Now if we assume that the allies had not invaded France lets see how things change... Since the 2nd SS Panzer division had originally been sent to France to rest and re-equip, it can likely be assumed that had the allies not invaded, they would have returned to the Eastern front. The 3 main armies however were likely to stay put. The 12th army had never left France, the 7th had been there for 3 years already, and the 5th was placed there after its defeat in North Africa.

I did a bit more digging through my books and realized I'd made an error in the OB for the SS during Normandy... And before you ask, yes I'm a hex and chit wargamer, and yes I have books on the order of battle for dozens, if not hundreds of different campaigns and battles lying around... I also realize this makes me a huge nerd but I'm OK with that. At any rate the SS force that was present in Normandy at the time of the invasion was the 1st SS Panzer Corps. This consisted of the 1st SS Panzer Division (Adolph Hitler), the 12th SS Panzer Div (Hitlerjugend), the 17th SS Panzergrenadier div (Gots von Berlichingen), the 101st SS Heavy Panzer battalion, and the Panzer Lher div, which was technically a part of the Wehrmacht but had been placed under SS command.

At the end of the day what this means is that the entire European campaign, at least until the Battle of the Bulge, was fought with its native troops. Those troops were in France. It did not matter at all if the allies invaded or not, those troops would be in France. This means that the Normandy invasion did not draw any assets away from the fighting on the Eastern front which was my original argument.

 

[Arsen]

The one where we bombed their oil fields was VERY instrumental in their defeat.

 

[Meggiepants]

however, most americans seem to believe, or want to believe, that the u.s. were instrumental in the defeat of germany.

I think I can shed a little light on why this is. I'm not picking on you in particular, I see this sentiment repeated over and over again in the replies to this poll, and just thought it might be useful to know a few things about how our history classes work in the US.

I've gone through schooling in America. I find it difficult to lay the blame entirely on the American idea of "we're number 1!" though don't get me wrong, there is a fair bit of that. The true culprit here is the education we get growing up. Our textbooks all through high school, at least from when I went, highly stressed the importance of Americans in WWII. It wasn't until I got to college that more than 3 04 4 days of class discussion was spent talking about this war either. Everything is glossed over in history class. They want you to learn about world and american history in roughly 8 months, each class getting about 40 minutes a day, and they need time for tests, homework and projects. Not to mention, you might also have a teacher who is more interested in the civil war than WWII, so they will spend even less time on it.

Add to that all the American made films about WWII where we are almost always the main protagonists of the films. The movies we watch are all about us, not about anyone else. In a country where more than half of the people can't even point out a picture of our Vice President, is it any wonder we don't know shit about the wars we were involved in?

It's an unfortunate truth that our education system is pretty shabby. When not even the people who are considering running for office here know basic history facts, you can pretty much guarantee the citizens are even further behind.

 

[Jeralt2100]

My understanding, as a product of American schools, has always been that while we did contribute a large number of soldiers once we were drawn in, our biggest contribution to the war effort was our manufacturing complex.

 

[Aedrial]

Every single battle was important. Every single fight was fought with the lives of the worlds citizens. As far as I'm concerned ever battle deserves the same amount of prestige, regardless of whether it was victory or a failure.

 

[Kathinka]

however, most americans seem to believe, or want to believe, that the u.s. were instrumental in the defeat of germany.

I think I can shed a little light on why this is. I'm not picking on you in particular, I see this sentiment repeated over and over again in the replies to this poll, and just thought it might be useful to know a few things about how our history classes work in the US.

I've gone through schooling in America. I find it difficult to lay the blame entirely on the American idea of "we're number 1!" though don't get me wrong, there is a fair bit of that. The true culprit here is the education we get growing up. Our textbooks all through high school, at least from when I went, highly stressed the importance of Americans in WWII. It wasn't until I got to college that more than 3 04 4 days of class discussion was spent talking about this war either. Everything is glossed over in history class. They want you to learn about world and american history in roughly 8 months, each class getting about 40 minutes a day, and they need time for tests, homework and projects. Not to mention, you might also have a teacher who is more interested in the civil war than WWII, so they will spend even less time on it.

Add to that all the American made films about WWII where we are almost always the main protagonists of the films. The movies we watch are all about us, not about anyone else. In a country where more than half of the people can't even point out a picture of our Vice President, is it any wonder we don't know shit about the wars we were involved in?

It's an unfortunate truth that our education system is pretty shabby. When not even the people who are considering running for office here know basic history facts, you can pretty much guarantee the citizens are even further behind.

i've spent a year in an u.s. highschool (senior year to be precise) once, so i kind of get what you're talking about.
the problem is that when enough people start to believe the skewed and twisted propaganda version (i mean, just look at this poll. staggering 24% believe the normandy landing to be on par with pretty much the whole eastern front!) then some day it becomes "fact" or "common knowledge". george orwell is probably furiously scratching the inside of his coffin due to this topic.

 

[The Epicosity]

Battle That busted the Germans in Russia was Kirsk. BIGGEST TANK BATTLE EVERRRRR. Germans kicked ass as usual with their superior crews and tanks, but numbers and reliablity of T-34 of Russia was just enough to finally break em in the East. If won perhaps they could of sued for some peace since Russia could not sustain such losses (roughly 15 to 1 at the beginning!!) forevor. In the West, ever since the failed blitz of England 9thanks to effing Barborosa) there was no way of winning England which would would have put the U.S. at an awkward spot.

What about Canada?

...or Australia?

...or India?

Uhm... well what about Canada?

Australia? Good luck getting there with the Japanese still owning the land around it.

India?... really?.. Burma campaign was all British pretty much, and with England conquered how would they get there?

You talk about it like America is the only country that helped in the war that was not in Europe.
Canada exists and had troops that were a part of D-Day and many other operations.

Australia was never fully surrounded, only having enemies to one side of itself, and still being able to airlift things out if needed.

India was another country in which England would've drawn troops from, all of these are, and were English territories, among probably alot of other smaller ones, this would put them in an even more awkward position, like being a dog and having your owner just die. You wouldn't have any command, because all of it is based in England, other than the territorial people, but they really only kept order, I think.

Sorry if I just wrote this horribly, it is really early in the morning and I should probably not be on the computer and in bed.

 

[Griffolion]

On the western front, the D Day landings. On the north eastern front, Stalingrad.

Just my thoughts. I can't say to have studied WW2 extensively outside of history class over 5 years ago, so I could be wrong.