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

[Sovereignty]

They just made 80% of the contribution is all.

Don't be an idiot, first of all you have no idea how much in terms of % the Americans contributed especially since the war started for the rest of us back in the late 30's and for America it was 1941 when Pearl Harbor was attacked. The British Empire was engaged long before then and Russia had to hold their entire front on their own for a long while.

It's post like these that derail a discussion. Seriously don't get upset because someone believes a war in which you and I weren't apart of was won thanks more or less to one country or another.

And besides he wasn't talking about the whole war, he was likely talking about the Normandy Landings. And while he's off by over 30%, the American forces did almost make up the forces that Canada and Britain had committed.

So if you wanted to really play the, "Who contributed more?" Card, America did. In regards to that specific engagement.

But I'm more or less peeved at how many people take WW2 history in the wrong directions.

Half of you piss and moan about how it, WASN'T America at all (While the American Industry Machine clearly was one of the largest factors in winning the war.)

And the other half fantasize that America won the war single-handedly.



The ALLIES won the war. With any single country having not been apart of the Allied attempts to stop the Axis we'd have lost. I get pride for your country, but this war is history. Treat it as such. It doesn't make you any cooler just because your country may or may not have contributed more soldiers to the front. Sheesh.

 

[Yossarian1507]

Both were important, because it kept the Nazi military force split. But, if I have to choose, then I'll go with Barbarossa. it was Soviets who ultimately took over Berlin, after all. Then again, Barbarossa was a stupidity on Hitler's part. If he wouldn't be so dumb and/or delusional, he wouldn't piss off Stalin, at least not at that point.

 

[Staskala]

As far we know, while Hitler wanted to occupy the Soviet Union, his generals wanted to do something much simpler; a smash-n-grab. Beat down the Soviet military, demoralize the population, take every valuable and leave the people to rot in the wastes of the remains.

If D-Day had failed (in as spectacular a fashion as it would have, had Rommel's advice been taken), there would have been nothing left to stop Germany from taking Britain, and then nuclear power or not, you weren't going to be evicting the Germans from anything.

And had they bought themselves any more time at all, Germany was on the verge of testing fielding nasty pieces of work like this working, radar-invisible stealth bomber [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090625-hitlers-stealth-fighter-plane.html], which would definitely have shifted the balance of power back in their favor.

One of the main objectives of Barbarossa was to secure oil fields deep in Soviet territory, for the German army couldn't keep on going much longer.
A steady supply was needed, something a smash and grab tactic couldn't accomplish.
Besides, the Soviets have proven that they were always ready to keep on going, so they'd reorganize their army fairly quickly and then execute their counter offensive.
Holding an onslaught of millions of now properly organized Soviet troops isn't something the German army could have accomplished.

Taking Britain is also something I'd consider impossible, most the German navy was already beat when D-Day came around, so even holding it off wouldn't matter much in that regard.

There's not much to say about super weapons, how well they would have fared in combat is entirely up to speculation.
Hitler also had a massive amount of missiles containing nerve gas, which he never used for obvious reasons, but once again, if they could have turned the tide is up to speculation. Maybe, most likely not.
Just nuking Berlin, however, is something that would have been close to a death blow for it would have left the military demoralized and without most of its leadership.

 

[TheTim]

I would've said Moscow, but thats just me.....

 

[Chrinik]

Stalingrad, hands down.
After that, it all went down hill for us on the eastern front.

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

Well, considering how Barbarossa and Stalingrad in specific led to more German losses than most Allied battles, I'm going to have to go with that.

Outside of that though, I'd say it was El Alamein. It opened up Italy for the Allied forces and Hitler lost one of his most important armies, Rommel's Afrika Corps.

 

[Chrinik]

Both were important, because it kept the Nazi military force split. But, if I have to choose, then I'll go with Barbarossa. it was Soviets who ultimately took over Berlin, after all. Then again, Barbarossa was a stupidity on Hitler's part. If he wouldn't be so dumb and/or delusional, he wouldn't piss off Stalin, at least not at that point.

Some experts argue that Hitlers offensive, while widely stupid, was actually the best move, since the Soviet Union wasn´t about all that "holding the pact" buisness themselfs, and where already organizing offensive divisions along Moscow and their borders.

One of the reasons Barbarossa went that well in the first years was that the Soviet forces where preparing for an attack, armed with light, fast tanks that would have made alot of ground, but couldn´t hold the line very well.

 

[Canid117]

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

No but we had the guy with the flag shield so no one cares about the rest of you.

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

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

Yeah no kidding. In fact it was all Britain, Canada and the other Allies, I am tired of America thinking they can take any credit for it.

Well, we did have Omaha, Utah, and Point du Hoc... Pretty important for the war effort, and we lost the most troops during that operation.

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

From the way Americans go on about it, I'm genuinely wondering if schools in America actually mention Operation Barbarossa or the Red Army at all when they teach WWII. All the Americans I know seem to regard it as "that war where we killed Hitler".

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

No but we had the guy with the flag shield so no one cares about the rest of you.

I lol'd.

 

[HerrBobo]

Which battle during World War II do you believe was more instrumental in defeating Nazi Germany, D-Day or Operation Barbarossa? I'm an American and I'm hesitant to say that either side was more instrumental. On one side the Americans liberated France and on the other side the Soviets pushed back the Germans. Arguably, the Soviets reached Berlin first, but if it wasn't for the American-led invasion in Western Europe, the Germans could have focused all of their attention on the Soviet Union and possibly launched a successful counter-offensive. But without Operation Barbarossa, the Soviet Union would have been severely weakened, and possibly even defeated. Which battle do you think was more instrumental in defeating Nazi Germany?

Your poll is very broken. How can you compare a battle that lasted a day(ish) with one that lasted 6 months?

People always look for "the one battle" that caused the defeat of the Germans. This is the wrong way to look at it. No one battle was instrumental in defeating the Germans, it was only after a number of battles over several years that they were defeated.

With a war like WW2 it is folly to say that one specific battle lead to the defeat of Germany. The war was lost on the production line as much as on a battlefield. Just as there is no one reason why an nation goes to war, there is no one reason why a nation loses a war. No one battle is the cause, for a modern war.

Gun to my head and I had to pick one reason why Germany lost? They failed to develop a heavy bomber during the 1930's.

From your "poll"? Barbarossa. Russia did more then any other nation towards the defeat of Germany.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

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

No one said it was.

They just made 80% of the contribution is all.

Wrong. Lets do this by the numbers shall we.

"On D-Day, the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy.

The American forces landed numbered 73,000 (just under half the ground troops)

In the British and Canadian sector, 83,115 troops were landed (61,715 of them British:- not that much less than USA)

195,700 personnel were assigned to Naval Operations: 52,889 US, 112,824 British, and 4988 from other Allied countries.

However, troops from many other countries participated in D-Day and the Battle of Normandy, in all the different armed services: Australia, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, France, Greece, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Poland."

Lets not forget all the other countries that participated shall we? Strength of numbers does not equal the sacrifices that were made.

And on topic, Operation Barbarossa would probably have been a resounding success for Germany, they advanced 600 miles in two weeks, Moscow was only 300 miles from the main battle group (1 week away) and they had another 3 left until Russian Winter hit, but Hitler decided to pull the group in half and head North and South to help the other forces in Leningrad and the Balkans. This took a month before they regrouped, by which time it was too late, all their equipment malfunctioned, the guns and petrol froze, and the soldiers froze to death. It also gave Stalin enough time to rally his men properly, and bring a united offensive, which beat the Germans out of Russia. That said, it still was the most important campaign, used up the most resources and men, and directly led to the fall of Berlin.

 

[imperialus]

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.

The question you need to ask yourself next though is: Which 1/4th of the army did the allies fight in Normandy? And how much did its absence affect the fighting ability of the remainder of the German army? To save you the the trouble the allies were up against the German 7th army, and the 15th army. Of these two armies the 7th was the only one that had seen much combat having served in Russia in 1940 as part of Army Group B (that ended up outside of Moscow) but that was it. The 15th army had no combat experience whatsoever. The only other units of note were the 12th SS Panzer division "Hitlerjugend" which was an SS reserve unit formed from members of the Hitler Youth... Eventually the 5th Panzer army also made an appearance. These were veterans of the North Africa campaign and pretty effective but they were using largely outdated equipment by this point in the war (Mostly panzer III's).

Last, but certainly not least there was one unit of the "big boys" involved, the 2nd SS Panzer division "Das Reich". These guys were top of the line, scary ass mofo's. They had been involved in the battle of Kursk, the largest tank engagement in history, successfully spearheaded a relief effort to save the 1st panzer army which would have been an even bigger blow than Stalingrad had it failed, fought the allies in Italy and tried to kick the Italians into shape, and then got sent to France to refit just in time for Normandy.

That one unit proceeded to kick in the teeth of any allied army that came within range of it. They fought what was probably one of the most successful fighting withdrawals in history, stopped Market Garden in its tracks and probably did more to hamper the Allied war effort in France than the rest of the German army combined.

In other words the allies managed to successfully occupy a single SS division and one first tier Wehrmacht army for the remainder of the war, though the 1st SS Panzer division Adolph Hitler did help out for a while before heading back east to where the proper fight was... Other than Das Reich and 5th Panzer the units that the allies fought in France were there anyhow, they were garrison troops, and they'd be there regardless of whether or not the allies invaded, so at the end of the day the allies took nothing away from the fight against the Russians

Put together this means that, the Normandy invasion had almost no effect whatsoever on the war effort against Germany. It was hugely important for the cold war, but all things considered the allies helped in Europe in two ways. First, they maintained a heavy strategic bombing campaign against Germany which crippled its industry. That had a huge effect on the war effort. Second (and probably most importantly) they sent and astounding number of supplies to Arkangel, which was the only thing that kept the Russians in the fight for the first two years or so until they could get their industrial base moved to the east and cranked up to full speed.

 

[Alphavillain]

Barbarosssa was not a battle, it was an Operation, lasting for at least four months from June 1941. There were many enormous battles in the Barbarossa phase. Hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops were encircled in the Kiev pocket/"kessel" alone, and that's just one of the battles that took place.

The Battle Of Moscow was probably the most important battle of World War 2, although Germany's hugely stretched supply lines and crippling officer losses up to that point (October '41) made any success in that battle unlikely.

If D-Day hadn't happened, Germany still would have lost, but Europe would have been overrun by the Soviets.

 

[DanielDeFig]

Seeing this Poll hurts.

Ok, the only two important battles, in terms of being turning points in the war and resulting int the ultimate defeat of Nazi Germany were:

The Battle of Stalingrad
and
The Battle of Kursk

The Battle of Stalingrad is where the German War machine was stopped dead in its tracks, and thousands of German soldiers surrendered to the Red Army, after an extremely bloody urban battle (for several days).

The Battle of Kursk was where the Germans were attempting to cut off the Soviet Counter-Offensive after Stalingrad, in a last desperate attempt to sop them before they gained true momentum. Fortunately, due to superior intelligence, the Red Army was able to organize both enough defences and enough offensive firepower (Soldiers, Planes, tanks. The worlds largest tank battle took place during the battle of Kursk) to obliterate the German attempt to stop their campaign to oust the German war machine from their lands.

It's up to debate which one of these two is the most significant, in dooming Nazi Germany. But personally I'd put my vote on Stalingrad, since there would be no Kursk without it, and the Germans had already lost all momentum by the time of the battle of Kursk (They could really only hope to stop/slow down the Red Army. The Nazi Army wasn't going any further by that time)

The German war machine being stretched too thinly on too many fronts, can't be forgotten. So the combined efforts of the Allies should be acknowledged. But it was in the soviet union where "The Nazi war machine had it's heart ripped out"


EDIT: Yeah like ppl have already said enough times on this thread, Operation Barbosa was a German operation. It was the name the German leadership gave to the military operation of invading the Soviet Union. It's ultimate failure was due to the German war machine on the Eastern front being frozen in it's tracks and smashed into pieces by the Soviet Union.

 

[Dr. Feelgood]

the Normandy invasion had almost no effect whatsoever on the war effort against Germany

WHAT! Okay Russia might have won on its own, but that could've taken many more years had the Allies not invaded. A second front does help in the end, and to say it was almost worthless is a hyperbole.

Also, if it isn't too much to ask, I wouldn't mind seeing a source that wasn't Wikipedia.

 

[Scrubiii]

"On one side, the Americans liberated France"

Sometimes I am genuinely disturbed by the level of patriotic propaganda that seems to be taught in American schools.

OT: Neither of the options provided in this poll were the most influential in turning the tide against Germany in WW2. Stalingrad was the most important, as it completely halted the spread of the German army into Russia and allowed the Russians to start seriously fighting back, straining Germany's resources. The next two most important battles were The Battle of Britain and El Alamein which halted the spread of the German army into Western Europe and Africa respectively.

 

[Dr. Feelgood]

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.

Well, America did take Omaha, but it took way longer than the other beaches because it was the most heavily defended out of the 5(I think, give or take one).

 

[JRCB]

Just would like to point out that the Canadians captured Juno beach on D-Day before any other army captured theirs. It wasn't just the Americans, as much as American history would like to say.

I'd say that they were both pretty big, and both were probably equally instrumental.

 

[SilentCom]

I really can't say for sure but it is apparent that Hitler dun goofed when he decided to make enemies with Russia. The last thing he needed at the time was another enemey. I want to say the D-day landing was more instrumental however I don't know enough about all the details, especially in Operation Barbarossa, to say.