[Squall]

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?

 

[Jubbles]

I can't really fall on either side of this one. Operation Barbarossa made complete sense for Germany to carry out and succeed in securing the third Reich's security as could only be done by removing the last land power from Europe.

D-day resulted from a culmination from many other events. If you want to look at what if any particular battle was most influential you need to look earlier on in the war between 1940 and 41

 

[gallon]

The battle of Kursk.

 

[BOBtheBUTCHER]

Stalingrad.......the german's lost a million men and realised they were not invincible.

 

[Bavarian Raven]

The battle of Kursk.

this. once kursk was lost; germany lost its ability to negotiate a peace with the soviets. before this, the soviets had been trying to open a door to peace talks with the germans. D-Day probably wouldnt have even happened (or if it had, it would have been different and much later) had the battle of Kursk not been fought. in reality, (land-lease aside), the british and american and canadian forces did relatively little when compared to the war on the eastern front (85-90% of germany's war efforts were going towards battling the soviets).

 

[Illini Warrior]

If you understand military strategy ...... Battle of the Bulge

 

[onealx4]

Germany was stretched too thin. The soviets took over the oil fields in Romania and that was there real undoing.

The soviets also stopped, they wanted to let the eastern bloc countries put in communist leaders, in anticipation of the war being over. Otherwise, the soviets would of rolled into berlin ALOT sooner than when they did. Stalin parked his military, the Polish army was trying to fight the Germans with Stalins army right over the river but they did not assist because they knew that they could beat the Germans later, they let the Germans take out the Polish army knowing full well that they planned a communist gov't later.

I think you take a military's oil away and you will see them crumble pretty bad.

 

[Smokeyr67]

Of the 2, Barbarossa, but no one op can be taken in isolation.

9 div at Tobruk stopped Rommel for the first time, Malta was a wart on the Axis backside, the 8th bombed the crap out of them (and made them commit resources to aa defence), the merchant navy kept Britain fed and fueled etc.

 

[real wowwee]

Barbarossa was the code name for their Russian invasion campaign, not a battle.

I will go with Stalingrad, followed by Kursk, that lead to eastern advances. When the Romanian oil fields got captured the whole gig was up.

But don't discount D-Day either and the entire western front efforts. The air campaign severely mauled the German war effort and the U.S. gave the Soviets massive amounts of material and assistance.

 

[mongoose]

The Battle of the Atlantic

Without open sea lanes lend lease, buildup in Britain, and Russian aid would not have been possible. We supplied more trucks to the Russian Army than their industry produced.

Sent to USSR by USA


Petroleum products.........2.8 million tons
Artillery shells................472 million
Aircraft.............................14,795
Tanks.................................7,056
Jeeps................................51,503
Trucks..............................375,883
Motorcycles..........................35,170
Tractors..............................8,071
Artillery Pieces......................2.8 million tons of petroleum products8,218
Machine guns........................131,633
Explosives..........................345,735 tons
Building equipment valued.......$10,910,000
Railroad freight cars................11,155
Locomotives...........................1,981
Cargo ships..............................90
Submarine hunters.......................105
Torpedo boats...........................197
Ship engines..........................7,784
Food supplies.....................4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment.......$1,078,965,000
Noniron metals......................802,000 tons
Petroleum products................2,670,000 tons
Chemicals...........................842,000 tons
Cotton..........................106,893,000 tons
Leather..............................49,860 tons
Tires.............................3,786,000
Army boots.......................15,417,000 pairs
102 ocean-going dry cargo vessels, 29 tankers, 23 sea tugboats and icebreakers, 433 combat ships and gunboats, as well as mobile bridges, railroad equipment, aircraft radar equipment,

 

[☭Comяade Яed☭]

The Soviet Union did far more to ensure the defeat of the Nazis than the western powers, as unattractive of a fact that may be to some of you.

Though I'm certainly not belittling the sacrifices of the west either.

 

[indoorsman]

Stalingrad

 

[Smokeyr67]

The Soviet Union did far more to ensure the defeat of the Nazis than the western powers, as unattractive of a fact that may be to some of you.

Though I'm certainly not belittling the sacrifices of the west either.

Not to disagree with you, but without the North Atlantic convoys, the Soviets would have been far worse off, so hats off to the RN, RNR, RNVR and the Merchant Navy.

Without the constant pressure of aerial bombardment, the Germans would have been able to produce far more war machinery, and free men to use those weapons, so hats off to the RAF (including the Poles, Canucks, Aussies Kiwis and Saffies) and the USAAF.

Without the constant niggling attacks from the resistance, the Germans would have been able to concentrate more of their forces to the East, so hats off to the farmers, the clerks, teachers, housewives.

Nothing can be taken in isolation, it is the individuals to whom we ultimately owe our thanks, not the B-17, the Lancaster, the Sherman or the T-34.

 

[onealx4]

Not to disagree with you, but without the North Atlantic convoys, the Soviets would have been far worse off, so hats off to the RN, RNR, RNVR and the Merchant Navy.

Without the constant pressure of aerial bombardment, the Germans would have been able to produce far more war machinery, and free men to use those weapons, so hats off to the RAF (including the Poles, Canucks, Aussies Kiwis and Saffies) and the USAAF.

Without the constant niggling attacks from the resistance, the Germans would have been able to concentrate more of their forces to the East, so hats off to the farmers, the clerks, teachers, housewives.

Nothing can be taken in isolation, it is the individuals to whom we ultimately owe our thanks, not the B-17, the Lancaster, the Sherman or the T-34.

When the Western allies started bombing runs, the Germans pulled the Luftwaffe off the eastern front, which gave the soviets a HUGE advantage at that time.

 

[Wall*e]

It could be argued that one would not have succeeded without the other...

 

[tigermk6]

battle of the bulge without a doubt

 

[home in oz]

I have heard KURSK.

But upon refelction, I think losing the Battle of the Atlantic and the Battle of Britain seriously weakened them and limited future operations.

 

[Moccasin]

Actually, the most pivotal battle of WWII... may not have occurred in WWII at all. 1938-39, Russia and Japan were having a series of rapidly escalating border clashes between the USSR and Japan occupied Manchuria that resulted in an undeclared but all out war and invasion of Russian soil by the Japanese. Stalin sent one of the few capable generals he hadn't stupidly gotten rid of with his purges, Zhukov, there with carte blanch to do whatever was necessary to win. Zhukov overcame extraordinary environmental, technical, and military difficulties to finally pound the crap out of the Japanese and send them back to Manchuria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khalkhin_Gol). This persuaded the Japanese that the Soviet Union was NOT a crumbling house that would fall if you just kicked the door down, as Hitler said, and they were careful not to challenge the Soviets again. If they had, if Hitler had pulled them into his war with Russia (the main reason for his declaration of War on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor, the hope the Japanese would reciprocate in kind), WWII... might not have gone as it did...

 

[Tankspridd]

There was 2 battles at Kursk

But in my opinion Germany lost the war at Sea

It started with the lend and lease program and USA beeing the worlds largest industrial complex ( When Germany lost the initiative with their submarines Germany was lost )

USA during that period of time produced 75%-80% of all oil during the war ( Not to forget what US industry produced per month )

edit:

The persons who won the war was ordinary housewifes constructionworkers and most of all the brave men in the merchantfleet

 

[Crackshot]

Ill put my 2 cents in for the German Surface fleet. If the resources that were put into the Tirpitz and Bizmark et al had been used on subs insted things might have been very different. But really there are many factors, and without a doubt what sealed Hitlers fate was his poor choice of invading Russia with whom he had a non-aggression pact with.