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

[Scde2]

Considering how Germany was in retreat after their disaster at Stalingrad and Kursk, along with the fact the Soviet Union outnumbered and outproduced Germany...Yeah D-day was a distraction. So out of the two, Barbarossa was more instrumental, although Germany caught Stalin completely off guard, the Russian Winter devastated German troops, tanks, and supplies. D-day just ended the war quicker.

 

[Hectix777]

I did an entire report on D-Day in grade 8. A combined invasionary force of English, Canadian, and American maritime, land, and air forces launched a massive invasion on the beaches of Normandy. This was the first all-front battle, dog fights, naval combat, infantry skirmishes. The forces invaded the beach to use it as the launch point for an allied spearhead tactic through France to cu off Germany and than invade the place itself, t freed France and sent Germany running. They lost France.

 

[Serving UpSmiles]

Barbarossa was actually the German first Grand Offensive into the soviet union (of 3 that were unsuccessful) which led to soviet counter offensives leading to the downfall of Germany, only 1/4 of the German Army was tied up in France fighting the D-day invasions and so the Russians would have won the war without the landings, IMO..

I'm not familiar with this, Educate please?

 

[Totenkopf]

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.

Correct, but Barbarossa wasn't a single battle, it's the name for the entire (supposed) Blitzkrieg-operation of the Third Reich against the Soviet Union.
And if you look at the heavy damage that the following fights inflicted on Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS, it's easy to see that this was in the end the move that sealed the fate of the war. If Hitler hadn't acted against the Hitler-Stalin-pact, the war probably would have had a different outcome.
I highly doubt that America would have sent troops against a Reich that wasn't devastated by the Soviet resistance and counter-offensives

 

[Caveworm]

Go read Downfall Of Berlin, Stalingrad, or The Coming Of The Third Reich. The Eastern front played a huge part in the fall of the Nazi war machine. Hitler helped too by being so stubborn and not listening to the Wehrmacht and it's generals. The loss of 600,000 troops; some of the finest the Wehrmacht had to offer. Huge turning point.

But yeah, many things over all contributed to the end of WW2.

People also tend to forget the Pacific. I am not an American and like a good European, I tend to get peeved at some Americans, but imagine Britain and her allies fighting on two fronts?

Especially if the Germans had not invaded Russia. The Russians might have helped fight Japan, after their humiliating lose of 1904-1905. Who knows. I am sure Russia would have invaded Germany at some point, if the Germans had not beaten them to it.

Fascinating to think what might have been...

Americans supplying us and the Russians with equipment.

War in Africa against Rommel.

The Royal Navy winning the battle of the seas: Mediterranean etc.

Battle Of Britain.

Defeating the U-Boats.

Covert operations in central Europe.

The resistance groups.

 

[La Barata]

If we're going for single battles, I'd say that The Battle of Kursk is definitely up there. Overall, it was the losses he suffered in the Soviet Union that ended up stopping Hitler once and for all.

 

[megaraccoon]

as a history studen i have to say niether it was a range of circumstances not a single battle.
first: hitlers obsession with bigger and bigger projects draining the nazi war machine of resources.
second: division over too many fronts, russia, middle east, africa, over britain.
third: lack of reliable allies, e.g. italy.
fourth: purging of men with the necessery skills in the military and public sectors due to "final solution" many fighting men in germany before the war were jewish.
fifth: failure to realise codes had been broken by british intel.
sixth: failure too secure needed resources such as middle-eastern oil
seventh: hitler not relying on his generals dismissed rommel twice.
eighth: production of actuall war material small due to resources being used for large unnecessary projects like the e-series or me262 or tiger mk2 and one for that matter.
ninth: failure to take malta
tenth: underestimating the enemy (british) and failing to route out the underground resistance movements
this is off course by no means comprehensive but a small part of the mistakes made by hitler which doomed his plans, but if i had to choose a single battle then i choose kursk as it allowed the russians to decimate the germans east flank and win ww2 (despite what the yanks think it was the russians who won the war and for this i thank them).

 

[malmodir]

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.

 

[Trololo Punk]

I'd say Barbarossa, just a complete disaster, one of the reasons D-day worked so well (i.e. bulk of the German army being on the eastern front).

 

[Hectix777]

I am... reasonably certain that D-Day wasn't solely American, you know.

It was a joint assault led by American forces but the invasionary forfeit consisted if a coalition of Canadian, American, and English maritime, aerial, and land forces.

 

[Hectix777]

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.

Yeah, don't take this the wrong way but we had World War 2 coming from a long way, this could happen to anybody. I guess Germany was an experiment in how to deal with dismantling war borne countries.

 

[Grubnar]

The German army was bled dry and lost the war on the eastern FRONT.
Pretty much all the combat OPERATIONS started by the German army ended badly.
The most destructive BATTLE of them all was propably the battle of Kursk.

... I'm an American and I'm hesitant to say that either side was more instrumental...

Of course you are.

Let me give you some food for thought.

If the German forces tied up on the western front had for some reason been available for re-deployment to the eastern front, it is doubtfull they would have changed the eventual outcome.

If the German forces on the eastern front had been available for re-deployment to the western front what do you think would have happened?

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Between running out of oil and the idiotic push into Russia... those would be the main reasons Germany was defeated.
Quote Vizzini: "You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is 'never get involved in a land war in Asia'..."
Allies got lucky, Russia had troops to spend and was literally fighting for their homeland (of which they were very proud).

 

[Dr. Feelgood]

Barbarossa was actually the German first Grand Offensive into the soviet union (of 3 that were unsuccessful) which led to soviet counter offensives leading to the downfall of Germany, only 1/4 of the German Army was tied up in France fighting the D-day invasions and so the Russians would have won the war without the landings, IMO..

Well, 1/4 of the German Army was still like 300,000 dudes, that would have made a difference.

As an American, people can say I'm biased, but the D-Day landings created the 2nd front, which in turn made the Germans split their army in half to fight on those two fronts. I don't think the Soviets could fight off an identically sized army with better weapons and supplies by itself.

 

[DefinitelyPsychotic]

Both equally helped win the war.

/thread

 

[MikeOfThunder]

Americans liberated France

Its usually just standard to put Allied* but I understand where your coming from.

Both were important events. However, Operation Barbarossa is clearly the winner for this question. The soviet forces faced the bulk of the German army. The indecision of German command (specifically Hitler changing targets from the Caucus's to Stalingrad to Moscow, all that became one big mess that although had fair reason for chaning targets, it really weakened the position of the German army).

Factor in the casualties suffered on the Eastern front, specifically because of the weather and disrupted supply roots, and Germany's army had become much weaker (granted it wasn't over by a long shot but still very important).

Bare in mind that the D-Day landings happened quite late in the war (June 1944 I think), by which date victory was already looking more likely. In fact the Soviets were really pissed about this and it was a factor in which Stalin distrusted the West so much.

 

[BlackStar42]

Most instrumental battle? Kursk, definitely. More than two and a half million men fought in that battle, 1.9 million of them Soviet. To this day, it's the largest battle ever fought and the largest amount of non-nuclear firepower ever assembled. This battle was the first time a blitzkrieg was ever halted, and it was the turning point for the Soviet Union- Germany was on the defensive for the rest of the war. The rest of the Allies might as well have not bothered with D-Day compared to the ass-kicking Germany was taking on the Eastern Front.

 

[Magikarp]

the Americans liberated France
American-led invasion in Western Europe

The Americans only landed on two of the five beaches, & they didn't make much progress on Omaha (although it wasn't necessarily their fault).
The point is, it was an allied victory, & America has no claim to playing the most important part.

 

[Kaytastrophe]

I voted for D-Day because if we are talking operations then D-Day was more instrument as Bararossa was the invasion of Russia, it was only around Stalingrad that the battle turned in the Allies favor. Therefore I would say Battle for Stalingrad>D-Day>Barbarossa

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Considering how Germany was in retreat after their disaster at Stalingrad and Kursk, along with the fact the Soviet Union outnumbered and outproduced Germany...Yeah D-day was a distraction. So out of the two, Barbarossa was more instrumental, although Germany caught Stalin completely off guard, the Russian Winter devastated German troops, tanks, and supplies. D-day just ended the war quicker.

This.

The offensive in the East took about (if I remember correctly) 70% of Germany's offensive strength. The Eastern Front was much, much more critical as it prevented Germany from reaching Russian oil fields, shattered armies of thousands and created an unstoppable/merciless enemy pressing for the capital. The allies, in terms of geography, would have been royally screwed if the Russians hadn't manned up. People often forget that the luftwaffe, although beaten over Britain, was ground down into nothing in Russia.