Which WW2 battle was more instrumental in defeating Germany?

Which WW2 battle was more instrumental in defeating Germany?

  • D-Day

    Votes: 3 60.0%
  • Barbarossa

    Votes: 2 40.0%

  • Total voters
    5

Squall

Member
Joined
May 29, 2011
Messages
16
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?
 
Werbung:
"Operation Barbarossa", was not a "battle", it was Germany's champaign against the Soviet Union. It included many battles. Of the battles in the European Theater of Operations that was most decisive in the defeat of Germany, it is arguably the battle of Kursk. There were more men and tanks in this battle than any other in the war. It should be remembered that 80% of the entire German war materials, men, tanks, guns, and war efforts were expended in the East (Soviet Union).
But do not take my word for it, the research is easy to find, just search on the Battle of Kursk, the battle of Stalingrad,
Of the major battles in the west, the Normandy landing had fewer allied casualties than the battle of Market Garden. The most American blood was likely spilled in the Battle of Hürtgen Forest (A battle the most Americans never have heard of.). The most significant battles in terms size and blood were Hürtgen Forest and the Battle of the Bulge.
Never the less, the significance of the Normandy Landing was the gaining a foot hold on the European Continent, not the numbers of troops (not on day one anyway), or the casualties.
Monte Casino was very bloody also, but its military significance was most likely just as a means of diverting German troops from the Eastern Front, and from garrisoning the Atlantic Wall.
However, do the research and look at the resources expended and casualties, you will see that the in Europe, WWII was mainly fought in the East. Few, if any of the battles in the West could match the amounts of committed resources and the number of casualties on both sides. Germany was bled white in the East.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk

From the above link:
German strength:
780900 men
2,928 tanks, 9966 guns and mortars.
2110 aircraft
Soviet Union strength:
1,910, 361 men
5,128 tanks
26,013 guns and mortars
2, 792 aircraft
____________________________________
Germans:
203,000 Casualties
720 destroyed tanks and assault guns.
681 destroyed aircraft

Soviet Union:
863,303 Casualties
6064 Tanks and assault guns destroyed.
1626 destroyed aircraft
 
Great question, Squall. Barbarossa was Hitler's greatest blunder. If Hitler had concentrated on sweeping through Great Britain, instead of committing the vast majority of his military to invading Russia, World War 2 may have had a different outcome in Europe.

Imagine if Germany had conquered Great Britain. There would not have been a launching point for the D-Day invasion, thus no liberation of Europe.

Thank God Hitler was an inept, insane, and ignorant military "strategist".
 
dahermit is right, with the possible exception to the spring offensive at Stalingrad no other battle had such disasterous effects on the German war machine. most would say Germany was defeated after Stalingrad and the capture of the German 8th army. ALL would say Germany was defeated after the defeat at Kursk, the largest land battle ever fought. D-Day just made it happen quicker.
 
It is also notable that there were some really disastrous (for the allies), battles during WWII. Among them are "Market Garden" and the "Dieppe Raid".
Dieppe was most likely just a political gesture that got out of hand. It had no real purpose except to show the U.S.A. that the British Empire was not just sitting on its hands and waiting for the U.S. to enter the war. It had no logical objective...it was too small for an invasion and too big for a raid. It begs the question: What was the purpose? They knew that they had to give up any objective taken and return to England.
After getting a lot of Canadian (and other), troops killed, equipment, guns, tanks lost (abandoned), they limped back to England and that idiot Monty lamely declared, "...that it was was "practice", for the invasion.", which was pure nonsense, from Monty as per usual.
Market Garden was even worse. It was planed in six days and the disaster it turned into, it showed. The soldiers were given the wrong crystals for their radios and could not communicate with each other, the command in England, or the resupply air craft. The paratroopers on the last bridge were dropped at a drop zone too far away. The intelligence that there was an SS Panzer division refitting in the area was disregarded. The Polish Paratroopers were dropped into a hail of gunfire on the second day (not enough aircraft for all the troops to jump at once). The relieving column of ailed tanks had to negotiate a single narrow road to relieve the paratroops that had taken the bridges, resulting in frequent delays.
In all, there were more casualties than D-Day. In short, it did not succeed, and wasted material, men, equipment that could have been used to hasten the end of the war. The village idiot Monty, stated: "...it did not go all wrong, we did achieve 80% of our objectives." But in truth, without the final bridge that would have allowed the allies to enter Northern Germany unhindered, the whole operation archived nothing. It irks me to no end that the arrogant Monty, in later life, would sign his name: "Monty of Alamein". (look up the lopsided advantage he had in that battle).
 
dahermit is right, with the possible exception to the spring offensive at Stalingrad no other battle had such disasterous effects on the German war machine. most would say Germany was defeated after Stalingrad and the capture of the German 8th army. ALL would say Germany was defeated after the defeat at Kursk, the largest land battle ever fought. D-Day just made it happen quicker.

Wrong. The battle of prussia in 1944, in which they lost 800,000 men, was the greatest german defeat. Germany wasn't defeated after kursk - they didn't surrender then. And the main german infantry army at stalingrad was the sixth army.
 
Wrong. The battle of prussia in 1944, in which they lost 800,000 men, was the greatest german defeat. Germany wasn't defeated after kursk - they didn't surrender then. And the main german infantry army at stalingrad was the sixth army.

The Battle of East Prussia, AKA, Gumbinnen Operation was not a German defeat. It was considered a victory in that they pushed the Russians back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gumbinnen_Operation

The O.P. asked: "Which WW2 battle was more instrumental in defeating Germany?"
After Kursk the Germans gained no more significant ground in the East. Kusk began the German retreat. Even though they were "victorious" in the Battle of East Prussia, they lost it soon afterward anyway.


Having driven the Russians back, I do not think the Battle of East Prussia was the most instrumental in defeating Germany.
 
The Battle of East Prussia, AKA, Gumbinnen Operation was not a German defeat. It was considered a victory in that they pushed the Russians back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gumbinnen_Operation

The O.P. asked: "Which WW2 battle was more instrumental in defeating Germany?"
After Kursk the Germans gained no more significant ground in the East. Kusk began the German retreat. Even though they were "victorious" in the Battle of East Prussia, they lost it soon afterward anyway.


Having driven the Russians back, I do not think the Battle of East Prussia was the most instrumental in defeating Germany.

I wasn't responding to the OP, but rather a post which claimed stalingrad as the most disastrous for the germans (erroneously). Further, the battle of prussia entirely destroyed german army group center as a meaningful military entity - hard to see how that could be called a victory.

I wasn't responding to the OP, bvut rather a post which claime
 
Werbung:
I wasn't responding to the OP, but rather a post which claimed stalingrad as the most disastrous for the germans (erroneously). Further, the battle of prussia entirely destroyed german army group center as a meaningful military entity - hard to see how that could be called a victory.

I agree that it was not a strategic victory inasmuch as it resulted in losses that Germany could not afford. It only could be called a "victory" from the point that the Russian initiated operation was not successful.
It can be compared to the Russian victory at Kursk, where the Russians lost more tanks and men than the Germans, but in the Battle of Kursk the Russians could and did afford those losses while stopping the Russian advance.
 
Back
Top