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

[Jake0fTrades]

Stalin was hell-bent to make Hitler regret betraying him, throwing everything he had at Germany. The fighting between Germany and the USSR could have been a whole war unto itself. D-Day, and all other major battles involving allied powers, severely weakened Hitlers grasp on Europe, but their main contribution to the war was forcing Nazi Germany to fight a two-front war, which they didn't have the resources or manpower to do.


I'd say 60% of the war was won due to the Russian offensive into Germany, the remaining 40% was due to combined Allied efforts.

 

[Warforger]

First of all, it is always fun to argue about historical events such as this war, IMO,

Yes but it is done so much it's annoying. It's practiclly the first thought people first learning about WWII when they learn about it. Why can't people debate something else like I don't know if Russia conquered India or something? Or if the Whites won the Russian Civil war?

second, Russia MASSIVELY outnumbered the German Army, the size of the country, even if a lot was uninhabitable, really boosted the population, along with the more desperate drafting I think Russia had.

Yah, but Germany had conquered much of Europe and had drafted people from those countries to fight which makes sense because Europe is a more densely population continent then Russia, on top of that there was the Soviet dissidents who numbered above 1 million,the problem was that they were all spread around occupying that territory.

Um I'm pretty sure the German army outnumbered the Soviet one so i doubt 1/4th is 300,000 dudes....

Um I'm pretty sure you're wrong.
Actually, I don't need the prefix pretty. You're just pretty damn wrong.
You are hereby banned from contributing to any discussion related to WW2.
Seriously, I don't want to be that guy but that's just basic knowledge if you want to be involved in he discussion.
Germany -> technological superiority.
Russia -> strength in numbers.

By the end the Germans started losing their edge, but that's another story.
For now, do yourself a favor and don't claim to be pretty sure of anything until you actually confirm it.
Though I will ask where you got this idea, if you'd be so kind as to enlighten me.

*sigh* You quoted the wrong person. You don't seem to realize how densely populated Europe is in comparison to the Union right? Well for one Germany in WWI had a bigger military then Russia did. Apparently no one seems to have recorded any military strength for either sides so I can't find any statistic to figure that out (which is pathetic for wikipedia and everyone else, because WWII is one of the most over done, bland, boring and nationalistic wars ever because of the first adverb so it should have military strengths when WWI does). However, the thing is that most of that army was split among the 3 fronts as well as occupying several other countries, so yes it's much smaller when it hits the Union, in fact if Germany had committed all of its forces to fight Russia then it would've been no question who would've won.

 

[The Epicosity]

First of all, it is always fun to argue about historical events such as this war, IMO,

Yes but it is done so much it's annoying. It's practiclly the first thought people first learning about WWII when they learn about it. Why can't people debate something else like I don't know if Russia conquered India or something? Or if the Whites won the Russian Civil war?

second, Russia MASSIVELY outnumbered the German Army, the size of the country, even if a lot was uninhabitable, really boosted the population, along with the more desperate drafting I think Russia had.

Yah, but Germany had conquered much of Europe and had drafted people from those countries to fight which makes sense because Europe is a more densely population continent then Russia, on top of that there was the Soviet dissidents who numbered above 1 million,the problem was that they were all spread around occupying that territory.

Meh, I must not find enough of it then.

Also, Russia's populated area was just about the size of Europe, or, if not, they found a helluva lot of guys from nowhere, they won a war with the main tactic being severely outdated: charge straight at the enemy with all of your men just about every time.

EDIT: Found the numbers. By the time they were attacked the Red Army had around 3 million soldiers, and they weren't even drafting. And at it's peak, 12.5 million men fought in the Red Army during WWII.

 

[Rayne870]

Hitler's battle with his ambition/impatence and lack of intelligence was the most decicisve, who in their right mind attacks Russia(which was neutral up until that point) in the middle of winter.

 

[The Epicosity]

Hitler's battle with his ambition/impatence and lack of intelligence was the most decicisve, who in their right mind attacks Russia(which was neutral up until that point) in the middle of winter.

He didn't attack in the middle of winter, it is just that the German army wasn't able to beat the Russians as fast as Hitler had thought, and they weren't able to miss the winter.

 

[The Epicosity]

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.

What..? I'm pretty sure the British did the majority of the work in North Africa.

At first, they did, but when the Americans entered the war, they had so many men that they outnumbered the British there and started doing most of the work in Africa.

 

[Warforger]

EDIT: Found the numbers. By the time they were attacked the Red Army had around 3 million soldiers, and they weren't even drafting. And at it's peak, 12.5 million men fought in the Red Army during WWII.

Ok good, Germany's army in WWI was bigger then that so I remain confident......

 

[Hamhandderhard]

Barbarossa. If Hitler didn't invade the Soviet Union, then he proabably stood a better chance of winning the war. I mean, didn't 77% of all German war casualities come from the Eastern Front? But Overlord helped out tremendously too.

 

[Alade]

Barbarossa, this isn't even worth discussing, if Russia had fallen the whole world would be under Nazi rule right now, also, the American's barely played part in the attack on Berlin, the credit for winning the war goes mostly to the Russian's (and British).

I do not mean to diss America, you guys sure had a flashy entrance and you kept Japan at bay, but the British and Russian's could have handled Europe by themselves.

Also, since I'm too lazy to check myself, can anyone recall which side played the biggest role in sabotaging the nazi's efforts at developing a nuke? I saw a documentary on that once but I pretty much forgot everything, iirc there were a bunch of black ops missions by one side that played a huge role.

 

[Hamhandderhard]

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.

What..? I'm pretty sure the British did the majority of the work in North Africa.

Operation Torch. While it is true Commonwealth forces did most of the work, the United States fought German and Vichy French forces as well. It was actually Americas first ground battles in ETO but it didn't go well at Kasserine Pass.

As for the guy above me I think the Norweigian resistance actually shut down the heavy water facility that Germany was hoping would produce nuclear weaponry.

 

[The Epicosity]

EDIT: Found the numbers. By the time they were attacked the Red Army had around 3 million soldiers, and they weren't even drafting. And at it's peak, 12.5 million men fought in the Red Army during WWII.

Ok good, Germany's army in WWI was bigger then that so I remain confident......

Give me proof. All I have heard is people saying that they are larger. I look it up, and the Wermacht as a WHOLE (Luftwaffe, Heer, and Kriegsmarine.) had around the same numbers as just the Red Army.

 

[Rayne870]

Hitler's battle with his ambition/impatience and lack of intelligence was the most decisive, who in their right mind attacks Russia(which was neutral up until that point) in the middle of winter.

He didn't attack in the middle of winter, it is just that the German army wasn't able to beat the Russians as fast as Hitler had thought, and they weren't able to miss the winter.

Derp, I can't believe I missed that. I feel like an idiot now, you're absolutely right. To add to it, who the hell is dumb enough to pursue Russia in the middle of winter when they are using slash and burn tactics on their retreat.

 

[jakeblues1295]

I'd say Barbarossa. I think the Battle of Stalingrad was the most instrumental battle in the defeat of Nazi Germany. The Axis had close to a million men by the time of the final attack, and after the battle those who were not killed were taken prisoner by the Soviets. At the end of the war of the close to a million men the Axis had less than 10000 returned.

 

[Hamhandderhard]

I'd say neither. I think the Battle of Stalingrad was far more instrumental in the defeat of Nazi Germany than either one of those. The Axis had close to a million men by the time of the final attack, and after the battle those who were not killed were taken prisoner by the Soviets. At the end of the war of the close to a million men the Axis had less than 10000 returned.

But without Barbarossa, we wouldn't have a battle of Stalingrad

 

[The Epicosity]

Barbarossa, this isn't even worth discussing, if Russia had fallen the whole world would be under Nazi rule right now, also, the American's barely played part in the attack on Berlin, the credit for winning the war goes mostly to the Russian's (and British).

I do not mean to diss America, you guys sure had a flashy entrance and you kept Japan at bay, but the British and Russian's could have handled Europe by themselves.

Also, since I'm too lazy to check myself, can anyone recall which side played the biggest role in sabotaging the nazi's efforts at developing a nuke? I saw a documentary on that once but I pretty much forgot everything, iirc there were a bunch of black ops missions by one side that played a huge role.

Sorry, but that American part is a no. This is biased by me being an American, but this is where you go to far, as to say that the other countries wouldn't have needed America. That would be subtracting a rather large number from the Western Front Allies' force, taking away the A-bomb, and, you mentioned it yourself, leaving Japan free to give Russia trouble, like they have before, and have an even easier time taking Britain's territories, including Australia.

 

[restoshammyman]

im going to say the battle for Stalingrad.

 

[The Epicosity]

Hitler's battle with his ambition/impatience and lack of intelligence was the most decisive, who in their right mind attacks Russia(which was neutral up until that point) in the middle of winter.

He didn't attack in the middle of winter, it is just that the German army wasn't able to beat the Russians as fast as Hitler had thought, and they weren't able to miss the winter.

Derp, I can't believe I missed that. I feel like an idiot now, you're absolutely right. To add to it, who the hell is dumb enough to pursue Russia in the middle of winter when they are using slash and burn tactics on their retreat.

It happens, you just totally forget something, I feel like I don't have the right to call myself a history buff at those times. >.<

True, I don't know for sure, but I think that they tried to just keep a defensive in the winter, but I don't know.