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

[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.

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.

Err... you basically confirmed what I just said? America played a vital part in the war by holding Japan at bay. My claim is that D-day did not play a vital part in the liberation of Europe.

I am not saying that it didn't play a part, I'm just saying that all it did was draw a little attention away from the Russians, who then went on to raze the Nazi forces in Europe and retake Berlin.

But the winner of WW2 was the Russian winter, I have no doubts whatsoever that if it wasn't for the Russian winter, the Axis powers would have won the war.

 

[Paragon Fury]

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.

That stealth bomber wasn't "speculation". What they found was a ready-to-be-made, proven design. Read the article on it; we built a copy of the plan using WWII-era tech and materials exactly according to the plans uncovered. They decided to test it; so they got some WWII-era radar and anti-air equipment out, and gave the plane a test flight. Not only was the plane completely radar invisible to WWII tech, it gave a slight pause even to more recent detection.

Hard as hell to fly without thrust vectoring, and couldn't carry as much as a normal bomber, but even a single wing of those stealth bombers would've utterly decimated Britain. And Germany was preparing to build them too; but then D-Day happened, and the Russian front started to go badly, and it got sidelined.

 

[Kathinka]

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.

That stealth bomber wasn't "speculation". What they found was a ready-to-be-made, proven design. Read the article on it; we built a copy of the plan using WWII-era tech and materials exactly according to the plans uncovered. They decided to test it; so they got some WWII-era radar and anti-air equipment out, and gave the plane a test flight. Not only was the plane completely radar invisible to WWII tech, it gave a slight pause even to more recent detection.

Hard as hell to fly without thrust vectoring, and couldn't carry as much as a normal bomber, but even a single wing of those stealth bombers would've utterly decimated Britain. And Germany was preparing to build them too; but then D-Day happened, and the Russian front started to go badly, and it got sidelined.

pretty inaccurate. when the landing on d-day happened, red army troops were already on native german soil. the wehrmacht was in complete disarray and the war was pretty much over already. nothing the germans could have pulled would have made a difference. the vast handicap on economic capabilities in comparison with the soviet union made sure that things were beyond rescue by that point.

americans just like to claim otherwise to not feel so useless^^

some of that nasty stuff, and much nastyer things, WERE fielded, and it changed absolutely nothing. all the miracle weapon stuff was fancy from a technological standpoint, but hilariously impractical from a strategic view.

 

[chstens]

Just thought I should throw this out there, it wasn't very instrumental in winning the war, but! But, thanks to Norwegian saboteurs sinking every german battle ship and troop transport docked in Norway, as well as blowing up EVERY railroad leading out of the country, which lead to thousands upon thousands of German infantry that was supposed to go to Normandy, completely stranded. Also, we halted the germans research towards the atomic bomb, just saying. The atomic bomb thing especially, should be more widely recognized.

So imagine, how would D-Day have been if there were 400,000 more German troops waiting for the American-British-Canadian joint operation, or how would the war have ended if the Germans could've completed their research into nuclear fission thanks to supply of heavy water we completely destroyed, with no civilian casualties, no less, and with the help of Ian Flemming and Christopher Lee. Yes, James Bond and Saruman assisted Norwegian saboteurs in halting German nuclear research.

These events gets little to no international recognition, where as alot of people have heard of The Flying Tigers. Just think, D-Day + 400,000 additional german troops and a german nuke. Alot of catastrophy-induced what-ifs there, eh?

 

[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.

So the soldiers who fought tooth-and-nail at Leningrad, Moscow, Sevastopol, and Stalingrad don't get any credit for bringing the German assault to a grinding halt, months before winter even set in? The Russian generals, mainly Zukov, don't get any credit for designing the revolutionary 3-layer defensive line that resulted in blitzkrieg assaults being rendered utterly useless? Or the fact that the Russians, yet again because of Zukov, crushed the Japanese at Manchuria and obtained a peace treaty as a result, freeing up 6 million(!) soldiers and allowing them to focus on a single front didn't have any effect?

Nope, it was all that damned Russian Winter's fault!

Of course they get credit. But if it wasn't for the harsh winter, Germany would have taken those cities. Even in early December Germans were right outside Moscow. Frozen tanks and soldiers don't do much against people who are used to it.

 

[Kargathia]

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.

Yes, and no really. There has been some comparison between the Eastern and the Western front, and it came down to that there were 8 German divisions fighting in the east, and 8 of them fighting in the west. Emphasis on "fighting".
Of course we're comparing apples and oranges here - one single campaign on the western front versus the entire war on the eastern front. Guess it's indicative of western perceptions of the whole thing.
However, when looking at intensity in terms of troops involved, and casualties sustained the picture suddenly looks quite different. As mentioned before: in the second half of 1944 the Russian Army was engaging roughly 8 divisions along a front stretching from the Baltic to the Black Sea. At the same time there were 8 divisions in Normandy - a much heavier concentration of troops on both sides.
Casualty reports also paint a picture of the campaign in Normandy being more intensive fighting than any comparable encounter on the Eastern Front. The war in the east just has the "advantage" of going on quite a lot longer.

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.

Let's see... The SS Panzer Lehr, the SS Hitlerjugend, the SS Panzergrenadier Götz von Berlichingen, the SS Adolf Hitler, and the SS Das Reich. Yup - all second tier garrison forces there.
There were of course a lot of Ost Battalions fighting, but on the whole it's extremely doubtful that the Allied victory in France was in any way due to superior fighting capabilities, as opposed to simply having a massive advantage in terms of money, equipment, and men.

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".

Contrary to popular belief they actually were capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. Being aware that you're probably going to win the war does not mean you've won it already. There was a lot of hard fighting still to be done before Russia would become the main issue, as opposed to the "next main issue".

On the original topic: wouldn't it be more interesting to pose an actually meaningful comparison of two BATTLES, as opposed to an entire front versus one single assault? Maybe compare El Alamein with Stalingrad - as they are roughly comparable types of encounters, but rather different from eachother as well.

 

[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.

Err... you basically confirmed what I just said? America played a vital part in the war by holding Japan at bay. My claim is that D-day did not play a vital part in the liberation of Europe.

I am not saying that it didn't play a part, I'm just saying that all it did was draw a little attention away from the Russians, who then went on to raze the Nazi forces in Europe and retake Berlin.

But the winner of WW2 was the Russian winter, I have no doubts whatsoever that if it wasn't for the Russian winter, the Axis powers would have won the war.

Sorry, didn't read your thing correctly, but you said that the British and Russians could've handled Europe themselves, and that still does take away a lot of men, but I guess is true.

 

[The Epicosity]

Alot of catastrophy-induced what-ifs there, eh?

I always say what-if the Confederates won the Civil War, which would probably change the whole world, what I just said was pretty much off topic in every way.

 

[Celinis]

D-Day was more of a strategic move by Britain and the U.S. after they realized Russia was gonna win with or without them, and they didn't want all of Europe under Russian control. I'd say Britain sticking it out instead of giving up was important part in the downfall of Germany, but really the Russians are the ones who broke Hitler's back. D-day did really speed things up though.

 

[Dr. Feelgood]

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.

Alright, quit talking like your God or something " I hereby ban from contributing to any discussion related to WW2", you need to pull your head out of your ass. Plus the German army in total was about one million guys at their highest anyway.

 

[Commissar Sae]

Well Each major battle was important in its own right. The Battle of Britain was the first Allied victory against the Third Reich, The D-Day invasion opened a second front further Dooming Germany. The Battle of Stalingrad devoured more than half of Germany's army. The Figthing in North Africa tied down the military genius of Erwin Rommel and distracted the Axis. The Battle of Midway pushed the Japanese back and proved US Naval supremacy. There are a lot of examples.

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.

Actually it was more like 1/10th of the German army and lets compare the numbers of total troops for fun. There was a grand total of 8.1 Million Germans in the Military in WWII, vs. 27 Million Soviets, vs. 600,000 US. Even without the Americans on the Second Front the Germans didn't have the resources to fight the sheer mass of the Soviet Army, no matter how poorly equipped they may have been.

 

[Commissar Sae]

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.

Alright, quit talking like your God or something " I hereby ban from contributing to any discussion related to WW2", you need to pull your head out of your ass. Plus the German army in total was about one million guys at their highest anyway.

I beleive I may have answered this debate with my previous post. Total German army 8.1 Million, total Soviet Army, 27 million.

 

[The Epicosity]

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.

Alright, quit talking like your God or something " I hereby ban from contributing to any discussion related to WW2", you need to pull your head out of your ass. Plus the German army in total was about one million guys at their highest anyway.

I think the army was around seven or eight at the highest, the whole Wermacht was at 16 million at it's highest.

 

[xchurchx]

i say what ever came first as both were huge fights in the war

 

[The Epicosity]

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.

Alright, quit talking like your God or something " I hereby ban from contributing to any discussion related to WW2", you need to pull your head out of your ass. Plus the German army in total was about one million guys at their highest anyway.

I beleive I may have answered this debate with my previous post. Total German army 8.1 Million, total Soviet Army, 27 million.

You are doing what other people did the other way around, you are doing the whole Soviet military to the German army, even though the Soviet numbers are still impressive, With the total German Army to be around 8.1 million, like you said, and the Soviet army to be around 12.5 million, I have to edit my last post predicting German numbers.

 

[Commissar Sae]

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

Actually Now that I think of it, the German Army did outnumber the soviets at the start of the war. But those numbers quickly switched following mass conscription in the USSR. Also, a lot of Soveit troops were taken prisoner in the early weeks of operation Barbarossa, which skews the numbers a bit as entire regiments were surrounded but given orders not to fire because Stalin refused to believe Hitler would break their non-aggression pact.

 

[Commissar Sae]

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.

Alright, quit talking like your God or something " I hereby ban from contributing to any discussion related to WW2", you need to pull your head out of your ass. Plus the German army in total was about one million guys at their highest anyway.

I beleive I may have answered this debate with my previous post. Total German army 8.1 Million, total Soviet Army, 27 million.

You are doing what other people did the other way around, you are doing the whole Soviet military to the German army, even though the Soviet numbers are still impressive, With the total German Army to be around 8.1 million, like you said, and the Soviet army to be around 12.5 million, I have to edit my last post predicting German numbers.

Depends on when really, Considering the Soviets lost an estimated 9 Million during the war I think your number is a bit low. Source?

Edit: ahhh my mistake, however the 8.1 I gave is total German Armed Forces, and not total Wermacht.

 

[The Epicosity]

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.

Alright, quit talking like your God or something " I hereby ban from contributing to any discussion related to WW2", you need to pull your head out of your ass. Plus the German army in total was about one million guys at their highest anyway.

I beleive I may have answered this debate with my previous post. Total German army 8.1 Million, total Soviet Army, 27 million.

You are doing what other people did the other way around, you are doing the whole Soviet military to the German army, even though the Soviet numbers are still impressive, With the total German Army to be around 8.1 million, like you said, and the Soviet army to be around 12.5 million, I have to edit my last post predicting German numbers.

Depends on when really, Considering the Soviets lost an estimated 9 Million during the war I think your number is a bit low. Source?

You have to sift your way through all the other history, but here:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSred.htm

 

[The Epicosity]

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.

Alright, quit talking like your God or something " I hereby ban from contributing to any discussion related to WW2", you need to pull your head out of your ass. Plus the German army in total was about one million guys at their highest anyway.

I beleive I may have answered this debate with my previous post. Total German army 8.1 Million, total Soviet Army, 27 million.

You are doing what other people did the other way around, you are doing the whole Soviet military to the German army, even though the Soviet numbers are still impressive, With the total German Army to be around 8.1 million, like you said, and the Soviet army to be around 12.5 million, I have to edit my last post predicting German numbers.

Depends on when really, Considering the Soviets lost an estimated 9 Million during the war I think your number is a bit low. Source?

Edit: ahhh my mistake, however the 8.1 I gave is total German Armed Forces, and not total Wermacht.

Wermacht are the armed forces, I had to look it up to make sure, the Heer is the army.

 

[Commissar Sae]

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.

Alright, quit talking like your God or something " I hereby ban from contributing to any discussion related to WW2", you need to pull your head out of your ass. Plus the German army in total was about one million guys at their highest anyway.

I beleive I may have answered this debate with my previous post. Total German army 8.1 Million, total Soviet Army, 27 million.

You are doing what other people did the other way around, you are doing the whole Soviet military to the German army, even though the Soviet numbers are still impressive, With the total German Army to be around 8.1 million, like you said, and the Soviet army to be around 12.5 million, I have to edit my last post predicting German numbers.

Depends on when really, Considering the Soviets lost an estimated 9 Million during the war I think your number is a bit low. Source?

You have to sift your way through all the other history, but here:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSred.htm

Thanks, reread your reply between posts and noticed I misread. But if you discount the Soviet partisans,conscripts and penal battalions you lose a lot of what made the Soviet army such a threat.