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?
Poll: Which WW2 battle was more instrumental in defeating Germany?
- Thread starter R_Chambers
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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..
Operation Barborossa by far, that's one of the main reasons D-day was succesful for a start (i.e: the bulk of the german army fighting the russians).
Dday was more like a nail in the coffin, barborossa is what actually put the germans in the coffin to begin with.
Dday was more like a nail in the coffin, barborossa is what actually put the germans in the coffin to begin with.
Well Barbarossa was a campaign that spanned 4 years and involved more troops, battles and casualties than every other theater in the second world war combined. D-Day (even if we expand it to include the Normandy campaign) was tiny by comparison.
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.
In fact, if you look at the allied war planning documents in the time leading up to D-Day the primary concern was not defeating Germany, but rather checking the Russian advance. I believe it was Montgomery who said something about preventing the Russians from "Picknicking in the Riviera".
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.
In fact, if you look at the allied war planning documents in the time leading up to D-Day the primary concern was not defeating Germany, but rather checking the Russian advance. I believe it was Montgomery who said something about preventing the Russians from "Picknicking in the Riviera".
Just two things, While I wouldn't argue with the phrase "American-led", There were more non- Americans in the landing. Also as mentioned, Operation Barbarossa was a German invasion plan, not Russian, Their counter-invasion didn't have c ode word i dont think
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.
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.
When D-Day launched Germany had already lost the war, the East front was in a hopeless state with the only hope left being super weapons that didn't actually work.
D-Day was more of a measure to prevent the Soviets from taking everything (mind you, they would have taken over all European territory until they reached Spain), just like the use of nukes to make Japan surrender to the allies.
D-Day was more of a measure to prevent the Soviets from taking everything (mind you, they would have taken over all European territory until they reached Spain), just like the use of nukes to make Japan surrender to the allies.
D-Day was the turning point in the war, but the Russians did kill quite a few Krauts. Rather, the Russian winter killed quite a few Krauts. While the Germans were freezing to death, the Russians were running around in shorts.
In all seriousness though, if not for the insane causality rates on both sides on the Eastern Front than the Normandy campaign wouldn't have gone over well.
In all seriousness though, if not for the insane causality rates on both sides on the Eastern Front than the Normandy campaign wouldn't have gone over well.
well actually it has been argued quite substantially that it was the failure of operation blue was the most instrumental failure in the fall of the nazi war machine, by spreading his forces in russia hitler made it nearly impossible for his generals to conquer either stalingrad or leningrad and thus they couldnt get a foothold in russia before winter, yeah you cant really blame it on one single battle, but you can point out that one operation or campaign was more substantial than others, your cynicism is possibl well placed, but it isnt particularly necersaryMoriarty said:
Of the two options, I'd pick Barbarossa simply because it was a huge mistake to invade the Soviet Union. Nazi Germany gained a lot of ground in the first few months, but wasted too many resources on trying to capture Stalingrad. Once the Russians pushed them out of the city, they were basically in full-scale retreat.
In my honest opinion though, I think the turning point was when the US actually entered the war on the Western front and invaded North Africa.
In my honest opinion though, I think the turning point was when the US actually entered the war on the Western front and invaded North Africa.
I think he's referring to:R_Chambers said:
Being a Brit, I'd point out that Canadians, English, French (albeit only a few thousand) and American forces liberated France, but I don't make an issue of it, Americans composed roughly half of the first two waves and made up the largest single contingent so who am I to argue.R_Chambers said:
Anyway, this is one of those discussions that is akin to: what led to Napoleon's downfall more: the failed invasion of Russia, or the battle of Leipzig.
The failure at the earlier event (in both cases) allowed the remainder of the allies to pile on the pressure with more surety of a victorious result. Almost regardless of how things were commanded/handled, D-Day would have been an allied victory, it's just a question of how bloody it would've been (it already was, I know, 1st & 29th Divs were mauled half to hell). In any event, the idiotic follow-up (Op MktGdn) made up for any further potential casualties that the Allies could've incurred on 6th June. Besides, only fortress garrison divisions were defending Normandy (of which only the 352nd was any good), so the defeat was inevitable.
TLDR: what this guy said:
Frankster said: