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?
Which WW2 battle was more instrumental in defeating Germany?
- Thread starter Laguna
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
-
16Replies
-
747Views
-
0Participant count
-
Participants list
Peter Parka
Well-Known Member
Neither. The battle of Stalingrad.
only america?
the battle of britain was pivotal,america had yet to enter the war and europe was under the jackboot....britain stood in hitlers way,only he didn't bank on the resolve of the royal air force,squadrons of spitfires and hurricanes which were piloted by british and free polish and czech pilots...britain winning inflicted hitlers first defeat and kept free the launching pad for the D-Day landings,and being free british and american bombers had airfields to allow bombing missions over occupied territory
Joe the meek
Active Member
Ultimately IMO it wasn't any one battle, but the American workforce and the fact that they could manufacturer "at will" during the entire war.
As far as most Americans are concerned only they were involved in the war don'tchknow.
war had been raging for over 2 years in europe and asia before pearl harbour was attacked on December 7, 1941
there were a few canadians in the R.A.F. too,flying fighter planes......i mentioned the poles and czechs because they made up the bulk of non british pilots
Its hard to say which specific battle which was instrumental. All of the major ones like D-day and Stalingrad, combining with deceptions that are too numerous to count. Another thing is the capturing of enigma machine which led to cracking of their code proved that no one battle was behind the defeat of the Germans in WW2
and contrary to hollywood fantasy it was the british that captured it not the americans
I have to disagree, if we Brits had capitulated like many other countries, including France, the war would of gone a lot longer, possibly with America despite its strength being defeated. The German army were producing at will themselves, if you learnt how fast they were producing U-Boats it would scare you. Only a change in tactics ultimately put paid to the U-Boats
:nod::nod::nod:
This is right up my son's alley so I asked him and he said
"Barbarossa because it was the beginning of the two-front war for Germany. As disastrous as the German Empire's efforts had been in the First World War, Hitler should have realized that round two would have gone the same. Had he ignored the Soviets for the duration of the Western Front, the Germans could have positioned more men and more of their crack units on the Normandy front, thus preventing the Allies from seizing a beachhead and pushing into France. Part of D-Day's success was their ruse, tricking the Nazis into believing the invasion would occur at Pas-de-Calais. With roughly four million more troops at their disposal in France, it is likely that most of the coast of the English Channel would have had fortified German positions to prevent an Allied incursion.
Also, Barbarossa was a bloody operation for both countries, but the USSR had the manpower to handle the war of attrition that was fought. Germany's victories were often Pyrrhic, and they lost hundreds of thousands or millions of men to General Winter, and let's not forget that the Red Army made use of slash-and-burn tactics, burning crops, killing animals, and doing whatever they could to deprive their foe of the vital materials needed to continue a war and forcing them to extend supply lines from their homeland. Then the tide turned with the ill-advised and disastrous Battle of Stalingrad which put an end to whatever momentum Germany still had left and put them on the defensive. Once the Germans lost the upper hand, it could not be regained and the Soviets were able to keep pushing them all the way back to Berlin.
It all comes down to logistics; if the Germans hadn't been fighting the Soviets, the Allies would not have had the logistical capabilities to field enough men to break a heavily-fortified German Bundeswehr occupying France."
"Barbarossa because it was the beginning of the two-front war for Germany. As disastrous as the German Empire's efforts had been in the First World War, Hitler should have realized that round two would have gone the same. Had he ignored the Soviets for the duration of the Western Front, the Germans could have positioned more men and more of their crack units on the Normandy front, thus preventing the Allies from seizing a beachhead and pushing into France. Part of D-Day's success was their ruse, tricking the Nazis into believing the invasion would occur at Pas-de-Calais. With roughly four million more troops at their disposal in France, it is likely that most of the coast of the English Channel would have had fortified German positions to prevent an Allied incursion.
Also, Barbarossa was a bloody operation for both countries, but the USSR had the manpower to handle the war of attrition that was fought. Germany's victories were often Pyrrhic, and they lost hundreds of thousands or millions of men to General Winter, and let's not forget that the Red Army made use of slash-and-burn tactics, burning crops, killing animals, and doing whatever they could to deprive their foe of the vital materials needed to continue a war and forcing them to extend supply lines from their homeland. Then the tide turned with the ill-advised and disastrous Battle of Stalingrad which put an end to whatever momentum Germany still had left and put them on the defensive. Once the Germans lost the upper hand, it could not be regained and the Soviets were able to keep pushing them all the way back to Berlin.
It all comes down to logistics; if the Germans hadn't been fighting the Soviets, the Allies would not have had the logistical capabilities to field enough men to break a heavily-fortified German Bundeswehr occupying France."
Last edited by a moderator:
the french government capitulated,not the people......the resistance were some of the bravest people of the entire war,often giving their own lives to help a shot down pilot...and the maquis deserve legend status
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maquis_(World_War_II)
All Else Failed
Well-Known Member
Barbarossa. Russia was probably 99% responsible for Germany's downfall.
Something like 70% of Germany's manpower, vehicles of all types and material were dedicated to the eastern front. If they were not they would have crushed the America/British forces.
Something like 70% of Germany's manpower, vehicles of all types and material were dedicated to the eastern front. If they were not they would have crushed the America/British forces.
Last edited by a moderator:
Barbarossa definitely. Hitler abandoned England way too early. If the Germans kept attacking England and eventually do a seaborne invasion, D-Day would never have happened, plus they could have drafted Englishmen (seeing as they were considered of the Aryan race - race laws still mattered around that time, before the Waffen SS started drafting foreigners), and reassemble the army and airforce (seeing as how the Blitz wasn't exactly a walk in the park), then negotiate with the Americans while planning the eventual invasion of the USSR.
Peter Parka
Well-Known Member
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members