Poll: Which WW2 battle was more instrumental in defeating Germany?
- Thread starter R_Chambers
- Start date
Recommended Videos
True, true, they did have many guerrilla fighters and different partisans, but the Germans also had large amounts from nearby countries that were abused by Russia.Commissar Sae said:
Hell yeah, bringing me back to that Civil War thing... Look up Harry Turtledove, he does amazing Alternate History books, including a trilogy (Of series!) on the Confederate war thing, and his books are just amazing, even if the occasional awkward read of a sex scene (ikr?) does come up.chstens said:
I'm actually appalled.
Barbarossa was an Operation. Not a battle. A series of bloody battles which the Wehrmacht won....
Where in the name of Herodotus' balls is Stalingrad? Kursk? Or any reference to the fact that the Russians broke the Nazi war machine, not the Western Allies.
Not that the Western Allies didn't do anything, but as time has worn on I've become more and more painfully aware that the Russians suffered far more for far longer.
Barbarossa was an Operation. Not a battle. A series of bloody battles which the Wehrmacht won....
Where in the name of Herodotus' balls is Stalingrad? Kursk? Or any reference to the fact that the Russians broke the Nazi war machine, not the Western Allies.
Not that the Western Allies didn't do anything, but as time has worn on I've become more and more painfully aware that the Russians suffered far more for far longer.
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.
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.
Also true, if my numbers are right there were about 450,000 soviet defectors that side with the Germans. but that barely covers the number of partisans (estimated at 400,000). But yeah groups like the Romanian Iron guard and a whole host of non-german execution teams (cant remember thei name, they were basically the crazier non-german version of the SS. Spent most of the war hunting down 'saboteurs' and Jews, guilty of a whole pile of war crimes, but hey so were a lot of the partisans technically).The Epicosity said:
Operation Barbarossa was not a single battle, and i belive you are forgetting that the allies had a foothold in Italy, and the troops which they used in D-Day could have been used to reinforce Italy allowing them to push the Germans back and drawing forces away from the East anyway. Because of this I feel the eastern front was more importantR_Chambers said:
Myths in this topic.
1. Russian won with numbers and bodies. Not true.
Nearly all the time the number of opposing german\russian forces was comparible.
After initial defeats (in Barbarossa campaign) - professionalism of the soviet army was quite high, such as the technical eqipment (at certain stages in certain spheres soviet technical equipment was way ahead of the Germans). Which, strangely lead to many victories.
2. Russian win with winter. Not true.
Winter is as cold for russians as for everyone else. Some minor technical edge in some cases did not influence as much as the actual heavy fighting, that continued constantly. Mainly "winter subject" is just an excuse german generals use in memoirs. Russians suffered the same from winter (if not worse).
True in this topic.
1. Russia won with resource superiority.
Both technical and human resources were higher than with the german army.
2. Eastern front goes to western front as 90% to 10% in terms of casualties of axis\russian to axis\allies
(about 14mln vs 1,5 mln)
3.A lot of events contributed to victory in their own merit (bombing of german industry by the Britain, lendlease etc. other battles)
4. One can't compare one battle to an entire operation. But comparing east vs west front see 2.
5. By the time D-Day happened the german army was already retreating in the east, and really had no chance from the evil eastern russian hordes of bears on unicycles. So as many people correctly say - that was to end war faster, and establish influence in europe, before evil bears do.
And yeah. 76 people still require a history lesson.
1. Russian won with numbers and bodies. Not true.
Nearly all the time the number of opposing german\russian forces was comparible.
After initial defeats (in Barbarossa campaign) - professionalism of the soviet army was quite high, such as the technical eqipment (at certain stages in certain spheres soviet technical equipment was way ahead of the Germans). Which, strangely lead to many victories.
2. Russian win with winter. Not true.
Winter is as cold for russians as for everyone else. Some minor technical edge in some cases did not influence as much as the actual heavy fighting, that continued constantly. Mainly "winter subject" is just an excuse german generals use in memoirs. Russians suffered the same from winter (if not worse).
True in this topic.
1. Russia won with resource superiority.
Both technical and human resources were higher than with the german army.
2. Eastern front goes to western front as 90% to 10% in terms of casualties of axis\russian to axis\allies
(about 14mln vs 1,5 mln)
3.A lot of events contributed to victory in their own merit (bombing of german industry by the Britain, lendlease etc. other battles)
4. One can't compare one battle to an entire operation. But comparing east vs west front see 2.
5. By the time D-Day happened the german army was already retreating in the east, and really had no chance from the evil eastern russian hordes of bears on unicycles. So as many people correctly say - that was to end war faster, and establish influence in europe, before evil bears do.
And yeah. 76 people still require a history lesson.
Operation Barbarossa was a German offensive.
Operation Uranus was the Soviet offensive that encircled the German 6th army and the Romanian 3rd and 4th armies as well as a portion of the 4th German panzer army at Stalingrad. After this battle the Germans had no significant victories in the east. I think that Stalingrad was the turning point in the war. The Soviets never would of lost the battle, they just keep throwing troops into it and with the winter and their much larger production ability the Germans would have been over ran and were.
Operation Uranus was the Soviet offensive that encircled the German 6th army and the Romanian 3rd and 4th armies as well as a portion of the 4th German panzer army at Stalingrad. After this battle the Germans had no significant victories in the east. I think that Stalingrad was the turning point in the war. The Soviets never would of lost the battle, they just keep throwing troops into it and with the winter and their much larger production ability the Germans would have been over ran and were.
The Italy part was what Hitler actually expected, he thought the Western allies would focus their strength on two different fronts, attacking through Italy and through France. They did this up to a point really, and focused most, if not all, their men on Normandy once they reached whatever defensive line they had in Italy, I forgot what it was called.open trap said:
With myth one, the only technological advances that I heard about was the T-34, even though that was a AMAZING tank, it is true that the Red Army won a lot of battles at least partially because of tons of bodies._alexisneverlate_ said:
Myth two, no. Russian winters are MUCH colder than anywhere else other than somewhere like Antarctica, not all places have the same temperatures, and the German army hadn't planned on battling the Russians in the winter, they had planned it to be a quick operation that they could get done before then, so it did cause huge amounts of damage to both the physical army and their morale.
Russia was the only country that got invaded by the Nazis that didn't need someone to bail them out.
On topic...?Ferroto Baggins said:
Russia didn't get fully invaded. I am sure that many countries that were ruled over by the Nazis wouldn't need too much help getting the amount of men garrisoned out, excluding places that are on the front line with larger garrisons of soldiers like Poland or France.
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.
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.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,526
- 4,295
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
I would say that the failure to capture and hold stalingrad really sealed germany, Im not convinced that america really needed to get involved after that for germany to lose, realy the blitzkrieg was a last resort method, they didnt have the man power for a protracted war like ww1 was, russia had a much better chance in such a war, granted if the US didnt get involved it would have lasted much longer but germany was still pretty effed