Which WW2 battle was more instrumental in defeating Germany?

[Squall Leonhart]

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?

 

[Brainonska511]

Are you Anarchist420's alt-account? You write just like he does, minus the Lincoln references.

 

[Braznor]

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?

The Germans lost millions on the soviet front compared to a few hundred thousands in the west.

The situation is other way around. If it's were for the Soviet successes in the East and taking the pressure of France, Western Europe would have never been won by the Americans.

 

[waggy]

The Germans lost millions on the soviet front compared to a few hundred thousands in the west.

The situation is other way around. If it's were for the Soviet successes in the East and taking the pressure of France, Western Europe would have never been won by the Americans.

/this

the US helped end the war faster. BUT the soviets would have eventually won it.

 

[Meghan54]

/this

the US helped end the war faster. BUT the soviets would have eventually won it.

By themselves? I seriously doubt that.

If it wasn't for the U.S. involvement in Africa, Europe and Asia theaters, Russia would have had no way to invade Germany successfully. And don't forget the U.S. "lent" massive amounts of food and material to the Soviets....without that support, the Russians would have continued to have to eat wallpaper paste, cardboard, tree bark for the war's duration.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

By themselves? I seriously doubt that.

If it wasn't for the U.S. involvement in Africa, Europe and Asia theaters, Russia would have had no way to invade Germany successfully. And don't forget the U.S. "lent" massive amounts of food and material to the Soviets....without that support, the Russians would have continued to have to eat wallpaper paste, cardboard, tree bark for the war's duration.

thank you. the us did what we did well (produce food, fuel, goods and technology) and the soviets did what they did well (die by the millions).

if there was 1 single war-winning attack, it was neither overlord nor barbarossa - it was the strategic bombing of oil supplies.

 

[uclaLabrat]

Kursk and stalingrad were the wounds that bled germany to death. No way could they recover after that.

 

[thebomb]

By themselves? I seriously doubt that.

If it wasn't for the U.S. involvement in Africa, Europe and Asia theaters, Russia would have had no way to invade Germany successfully. And don't forget the U.S. "lent" massive amounts of food and material to the Soviets....without that support, the Russians would have continued to have to eat wallpaper paste, cardboard, tree bark for the war's duration.

Hmm, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. American Lend-Lease (LL) equipment and supplies reached Soviet frontline units in meaningful quantities in late 1942/early 1943. By that time the Soviets had defeated the Nazis at Stalingrad and were steadily advancing on all fronts. In any event the Soviets had no problem pushing the Germans back with their factories now safely behind the Urals.

However I believe Lend-Lease played an important role in several key areas in the later stages of the war. American trucks and jeeps were in great demand and played a large part in ensuring Soviet operational mobility (especially in Operation Bagration). LL trucks and other organic transportation assets took a huge load off the Soviet industrial machine which was working non-stop in order to fulfill ever-increasing demands for tanks and planes. In this way it seems as though LL shorted the war by a year or two. Nevertheless I imagine the Soviets would have ultimately reached Berlin regardless of LL.

 

[Bignate603]

While different battles played large roles in winning in the end what won was the massive effort to produce more and better equipment faster. The US ended up supplying themselves and providing a huge amount to our allies. The sheer number of planes, ships, tanks, trucks, bombs, food, etc that we pumped out during that time was insane. Aviation technology exploded, mobility for troops on the ground was revolutionized with things like 4x4 trucks and jeeps.

The allies won because they were able to out produce the axis. While the generals on the ground were able to make use of that quite well without the explosion in production they wouldn't have stood a chance.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Neither of those were battles, they were operations, which included many, many battles and skirmishes. Also, I think you meant Operation Overlord instead of D-Day.

 

[guyver01]

Which battle during World War II do you believe was more instrumental in defeating Nazi Germany, D-Day or Operation Barbarossa?

Neither

Battle of Stalingrad is considered the turning point of the war, and as such, was instrumental in the Nazi defeat.

In its defeat, the crippling losses suffered by Germany's military proved to be insurmountable for the war

 

[PieIsAwesome]

Neither

Battle of Stalingrad is considered the turning point of the war, and as such, was instrumental in the Nazi defeat.

In its defeat, the crippling losses suffered by Germany's military proved to be insurmountable for the war

It was also the first time that the invading Germans were turned back by those they were attacking IIRC.

The huge army of millions that Germany lost there was their cream. An enormous loss.

 

[Gooberlx2]

The way I look at it, I think invading the Soviets was Germany's biggest mistake, and probably the greatest catalyst to their ultimate failure. A lot of what defeated Germany were the combined consequences of that failed invasion.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

The Germans lost millions on the soviet front compared to a few hundred thousands in the west.

The situation is other way around. If it's were for the Soviet successes in the East and taking the pressure of France, Western Europe would have never been won by the Americans.

lol come on now, don't forget we had Japan to contend with as well. If it wasn't for our own war on two fronts things would have been just as different.

 

[Scouzer]

Anyone who votes D-Day lacks knowledge of WW2.

 

[OCGuy]

Stalingrad, Battle of the Buldge, just to name couple... > Overlord.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

By themselves? I seriously doubt that.

The resources and manufacturing capabilities of both the US and Russia would have eventually defeated Germany one-on-one. It would have taken a lot longer and cost a lot more lives, but it was a fait accompli as long as we or they did not lose the stomach for fighting. Industrial might wins wars and Germany was unable to absorb material losses as easily as the Americans or Russians. We or they would have ground the Germans down even without the other to help.

Anyone who votes D-Day lacks knowledge of WW2.

It sure wasn't D-Day, but even without Barbarossa the Germans would have lost. By D-Day the way was over, it was just a matter of retaking the land. At that point it could have become a siege and we would have just starved the Germans for fuel. D-Day did nothing. And Barbarossa was one of the worst military blunders in history. It was just a guaranteed way to lose the war faster and more efficiently. But the battle most responsible for Germany losing like they did was The Battle of Britain. If that went the way the Germans planned and if they managed to conquer England as quickly as they did France the USA probably never would have gotten involved in Europe. The RAF beating the snot out of the Luftwaffe was FAR more important than any other single battle. That win was what kept the war going long enough for the USA to get up to speed. A quick win there and Germany might have managed to hold western Europe long term.

 

[AlienCraft]

thank you. the us did what we did well (produce food, fuel, goods and technology) and the soviets did what they did well (die by the millions).

if there was 1 single war-winning attack, it was neither overlord nor barbarossa - it was the strategic bombing of oil supplies.

This and without obtaining ENIGMA machine (from US uboat attack) and alternate rotors (UK Danish sea port commando attack) the war would have been markedly different. Small operations yielding massive Intelligence for the Allies changing the course of war operations worldwide.

 

[SKORPI0]

Operation Barbarossa

Its failure was a turning point in the Third Reich's fortunes.

 

[dennilfloss]

Thing is with Barbarossa is that even if Hitler had not attacked Stalin, Stalin would have attacked Germany as soon as Russia's rearmament was done, like 2-3 years down the road. These two autocratic regimes with conflicting ideologies, led by leaders who hated each other, were bound to clash militarily sooner than later.

As for Germany taking Russia alone in a defensive fight, one has to remember that removing the very large effect bombing by the western allies had on German war production changes the equation. We're talking a lot more Panthers, more manpower not busy manning AAA, more oil, etc... Russia had good tactical air power but very limited strategic air power. It probably could not have devastated German war production to the same extent. It's no longer a given then that Germany cannot withstand an onslaught by the Russian hordes when defending its own soil.

 

[microAmp]

But the battle most responsible for Germany losing like they did was The Battle of Britain. If that went the way the Germans planned and if they managed to conquer England as quickly as they did France the USA probably never would have gotten involved in Europe. The RAF beating the snot out of the Luftwaffe was FAR more important than any other single battle. That win was what kept the war going long enough for the USA to get up to speed. A quick win there and Germany might have managed to hold western Europe long term.

Germany almost had England beaten in Operation Sea Lion until a German bomber dropped its bombs on an English city, which ticked off England and bombed a German city, which pissed them off and started the whole bombing of cities instead of strategic targets, like air fields. This allowed England to recoup and dominate the air.

One opps there, another opps there can change an entire outlook any where. Watching a show on Military Channel said the first blunder goes back to Dunkirk. Germans stopped for an unknown reason, England thought that only 30,000-40,000 British troops would be rescued, 340,000 were. 340,000 went on to defend England, Africa, and else where.

 

[0roo0roo]

The Germans lost millions on the soviet front compared to a few hundred thousands in the west.

The situation is other way around. If it's were for the Soviet successes in the East and taking the pressure of France, Western Europe would have never been won by the Americans.

whats forgotten is western aid was the only thing that allowed the soviets to build a war machine, much of their basics from locomotives to trucks were shipped in from the us. a full 2/3rds of the red armies trucks were american 2000 locomotives were sent to them, they only managed to make 92 themselves.

 

[WT]

Battle of Stalingrad is considered the turning point of the war, and as such, was instrumental in the Nazi defeat.

In its defeat, the crippling losses suffered by Germany's military proved to be insurmountable for the war

Have to agree on this one. IMHO, the Russian winter beat the Germans at Stalingrad moreso than the Russians. The Germans were ill-fitted for any winter siege, with no heavy coats or boots and suffered frostbite by the thousands. And with their supply lines stretched over 1,000 miles, they could not do anything but suffer until the Russians amassed reserves across the Volga and caught them in one huge pincer counter-attack

 

[OVerLoRDI]

Hitler creating the 2nd front is one of the reasons that he did not win the Battle of Britain. The splitting of forces (especially planes) resulted in the Battle of Britain being lost (for the Germans) and the planned invasion being delayed/cancelled.

Also neither of those are really 1 single battle. Technically they are operations.

 

[darkxshade]

Soviet winter was what was instrumental in defeating Germany.