Which WW2 battle was more instrumental in defeating Germany?

jonniebgood1

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Einstein tries to dismiss statistics "Oh for God's sake; lies damn lies and statistics." - and then goes on to produce his own as ' proof ' "if the RAF were only hitting 5% of their targets and the Americans 15%,"


' Yawn ' .....ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Patsy- as per the H&H charter. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055234973
"If you disagree with someone it would be a lot better to convince them to your way of thinking through logical debate rather than insulting them"

Please stick to this rather than the above quoted response. Thanks.

getz

when i first went into the merchant navy in 1957,there was still a number of seamen about that sailed on the russian convoys,russia like brittan could not continue the war without the supplies of arms ,one in three ships that sailed was sunk with a great loss of life,3000 alone died on the russian run, being in the brittish merchant navy in WW11 was very dangerous,they lost more men than the airforce,royal navy or army,some of the seamen who died were just 15 years old,there also was some irish ships sunk with a loss of life,those irishmen who were lucky to be rescued by the germans,were also held prisoners,no neutrality for them.

Iwannahurl

I haven't read the entire thread, interesting though it is.

A thought occurs to me: was the offensive launched on D-Day really a race against the Russians?

Winning wars and conquering enemies has always been about dividing the spoils, as well as all the other stuff about fighting tyranny and defending freedom.

getz

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I haven't read the entire thread, interesting though it is.

A thought occurs to me: was the offensive launched on D-Day really a race against the Russians?

Winning wars and conquering enemies has always been about dividing the spoils, as well as all the other stuff about fighting tyranny and defending freedom.

britain france USA and italy did not get any spoils,only russia took over countries and dident leave,

Fratton Fred

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I haven't read the entire thread, interesting though it is.

A thought occurs to me: was the offensive launched on D-Day really a race against the Russians?

Winning wars and conquering enemies has always been about dividing the spoils, as well as all the other stuff about fighting tyranny and defending freedom.

D-Day was about liberating France, Belgium, The Netherlands etc.

Once the Russians had rid eastern europe of the Nazis, why would they bother with the West? Or, more worryingly, what if they did decide to go the whole hog and the Soviet influence extended all the way to Brest?

It was initially about defeating Hitler and then became about extending influence.

Fratton Fred

It is worth pointing out as well that it wasn't really until Operation Bagration that the Russians rid the Soviet Union of Germans and up until this point although advancing, were doing so slowly and at huge cost.

PatsytheNazi

dpe wrote: »

No more feeding the troll for me...

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Patsy- as per the H&H charter. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055234973
"If you disagree with someone it would be a lot better to convince them to your way of thinking through logical debate rather than insulting them"

Please stick to this rather than the above quoted response. Thanks.

No, I'm not bothered to reply to someone who is ready to oppose regardless whatever logical debate that's posted.

Reekwind

getz wrote: »

britain france USA and italy did not get any spoils,only russia took over countries and dident leave,

Except that you're talking in the wrong terms. De Gaulle made huge gains, De Gasperi made huge gains, etc, etc. It is not that farfetched to imagine to see Thorez or Togliatti in their place. The establishment of a liberal capitalist West under US leadership, and soon to be bound together in a formal military alliance, was of course of immense benefit to Washington

And it was one that was largely due to Stalin, as strange as that might sound. There was no real 'race' in 1944 because the lines of post-war Europe had already been drawn (and would be confirmed in the infamous 'percentages agreement'). The US and new Allied governments were able to establish themselves in Western Europe largely because they enjoyed the support, on Moscow's orders, of the various Communist Parties. Even in the case of civil war, as in Greece, Stalin actively undermined Communist efforts as per agreements with the Western powers

Of course that might have been different if there was no D-Day at all, but then that would have arguably been the Allies breaking the deal

russia like brittan could not continue the war without the supplies of arms

Not to diminish the efforts of those merchant sailors, but the decisive battle on the Eastern Front was Moscow '41. By this point only a handful of convoys had arrived and they carried a relatively small amount of supplies. They did not play any real role in that critical winter campaign. The USSR might not have been able to win without Allied material aid, or at least not be '45, but it would have survived the Nazi onslaught regardless of it

jonniebgood1

Reekwind wrote: »

the decisive battle on the Eastern Front was Moscow '41. By this point only a handful of convoys had arrived and they carried a relatively small amount of supplies. They did not play any real role in that critical winter campaign. The USSR might not have been able to win without Allied material aid, or at least not be '45, but it would have survived the Nazi onslaught regardless of it

If the Germans had really wanted Moscow they could have got it in 1942 by concentrating all their efforts on it. I dont think that if they had reached Moscow in 1941 that the problems they encountered in Stalingrad would have been much different. The difference is only a handful of miles.

Reekwind

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

If the Germans had really wanted Moscow they could have got it in 1942 by concentrating all their efforts on it

Wouldn't agree with that. The rapid German progress to the south in 1942 was due in large part to the fact that Stavka (read: Stalin) was expecting a renewed assault on Moscow and had stationed the bulk of the Red Army's reserves accordingly. A drive on Moscow in 1942 would have just forced an earlier Stalingrad - a massive battle of annihilation that pitted the bulk of both armies against each other

Besides, Moscow itself was always a prestige target. Its importance in 1941 lay in that a German victory during Typhoon could well have (finally) destroyed the Red Army as a fighting force. Or at least deal it a blow from which it would struggle to recover

I dont think that if they had reached Moscow in 1941 that the problems they encountered in Stalingrad would have been much different

True 'dat. Reaching Moscow was never enough: the plan was to encircle it in one last grand pincer movement. A glance at the map show's just how far away Guderian's southern thrust was from the city

Delancey

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I haven't read the entire thread, interesting though it is.

A thought occurs to me: was the offensive launched on D-Day really a race against the Russians?

Winning wars and conquering enemies has always been about dividing the spoils, as well as all the other stuff about fighting tyranny and defending freedom.

It certainly was not a race to Berlin - it has already been decided the Russians would do that and lose almost 100,000 troops in the process

PatsytheNazi

Delancey wrote: »

It certainly was not a race to Berlin - it has already been decided the Russians would do that and lose almost 100,000 troops in the process

True enough. I know it sounds contradictionary, but wasn't operation Market Garden an attempt to set in motion a process of getting to Berlin first ?

jonniebgood1

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

True enough. I know it sounds contradictionary, but wasn't operation Market Garden an attempt to set in motion a process of getting to Berlin first ?

Market garden was aimed at capturing bridges ahead of the battle line before the Germans could destroy them. The hope was that this would allow the war to be completed in 1944.

Delancey

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

True enough. I know it sounds contradictionary, but wasn't operation Market Garden an attempt to set in motion a process of getting to Berlin first ?

The idea was that Market Garden would facilitate an early land attack on the Ruhr industrial area , Montgomery with his usual bullsh1t said it would bring the boys home for Christmas.
As we all know it was an utter disaster which Monty neatly glossed over in his memoirs.

Eisenhower as Supreme Commander was well aware that the American people would never tolerate the level of losses the Red Army would suffer in the Battle For Berlin , he was quite happy to move slowly and methodically into Germany , his lukewarm support for Market Garden was more to do with playing politics than military strategy.

PatsytheNazi

Delancey wrote: »

The idea was that Market Garden would facilitate an early land attack on the Ruhr industrial area , Montgomery with his usual bullsh1t said it would bring the boys home for Christmas.
As we all know it was an utter disaster which Monty neatly glossed over in his memoirs.

Eisenhower as Supreme Commander was well aware that the American people would never tolerate the level of losses the Red Army would suffer in the Battle For Berlin , he was quite happy to move slowly and methodically into Germany , his lukewarm support for Market Garden was more to do with playing politics than military strategy.

To be fair to Montgomery, Market Garden wasn't the worst idea of WW2. It was quite daring, more what you'd have expected from Patton than Montgomery. Might have worked if the British had held their bridges.

Delancey

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

To be fair to Montgomery, Market Garden wasn't the worst idea of WW2. It was quite daring, more what you'd have expected from Patton than Montgomery. Might have worked if the British had held their bridges.

It is true the Market Garden was an unusually bold and daring plan to come from Montgomery who was described by Field Marshal Von Runstedt as '' cautious , predictable and habit-ridden ''.
Much has been written about how/where/why it failed but in my view the biggest issue was that Monty's grand plan was predicated on the Germans putting up light resistance with Hitler Youth and Volksturm , he ignored the ample intelligence that indicated the mother of battles lay ahead.

indioblack

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

To be fair to Montgomery, Market Garden wasn't the worst idea of WW2. It was quite daring, more what you'd have expected from Patton than Montgomery. Might have worked if the British had held their bridges.

All the bridges/crossings were held and eventally secured by the allies - except the last one - and without it, in respect of the plan, you could say it was a road to nowhere.

Delancey

indioblack wrote: »

All the bridges/crossings were held and eventally secured by the allies - except the last one - and without it, in respect of the plan, you could say it was a road to nowhere.

Not strictly correct - the Wilhelmina Canal bridge at Son was destroyed by the Germans before it could be captured and although a Bailey Bridge was put in place it delayed the relief advance of XXX Corps by 24 - 36 hours - a delay that would prove crucial to the forces at Arnhem.

indioblack

Delancey wrote: »

Not strictly correct - the Wilhelmina Canal bridge at Son was destroyed by the Germans before it could be captured and although a Bailey Bridge was put in place it delayed the relief advance of XXX Corps by 24 - 36 hours - a delay that would prove crucial to the forces at Arnhem.

Yes - and having watched A Bridge Too Far God knows how many times I should have remembered that!
Read the book a long time ago - and General Urquhart's book on Arnhem in which he writes that it had to be 1st Airborne for the Arnhem bridge rather than 101st or 82nd in case it all went wrong.
I did read it a long time ago so I'm open to correction on this.

mrsoundie

I do believe that the Germans (Hitlers) defeat was set in motion by two Germans by the names of Karl Max and Friedrich Engels.

Funny really.

So I would say that the battle that was more instrumental in the defeat of Germany was the class battle. (Might be sorry for that).

Manic Moran

but in my view the biggest issue was that Monty's grand plan was predicated on the Germans putting up light resistance with Hitler Youth and Volksturm , he ignored the ample intelligence that indicated the mother of battles lay ahead.

Although this is true, I think the British could have held out. Note that Frost's single battalion held out most of a week, can you imagine what would have happened had the entire British force had managed to get to the bridge from a drop zone that wasn't the better part of ten miles from the objective?

That's what really killed them, and they should have been able to solve that before the first man jumped out the door.

NTM

getz

i suppose the battle of the north atlantic was also a big factor,if the convoys had not got been able to get to brittain,that would have been the end.

Delancey

Manic Moran wrote: »

Although this is true, I think the British could have held out. Note that Frost's single battalion held out most of a week, can you imagine what would have happened had the entire British force had managed to get to the bridge from a drop zone that wasn't the better part of ten miles from the objective?

That's what really killed them, and they should have been able to solve that before the first man jumped out the door.

NTM

It's true the selection of drop zones so far from the bridge was a huge handicap to the Britiish though had all the force made it there I'm not convinced it would have altered the final outcome.
The troops would still have run out of ammunition and faced Panzers , they might have held out longer but I suspect surrender would have been the ultimate result.

As an aside I was privileged to meet a veteran of the Arnhem operation a few years ago and it was fascinating to hear his insights into what went wrong - he didn't blame the weather , drop zone location , crap radios , the relief column delay or any of the most written about issues - he laid the blame squarely on the Americans who in his view starved the troops at Arnhem of the promised air support.
Although I don't accept his view I did not challenge him directly , to do so would be IMO disrespectful to a veteran who was there but it was interesting nonetheless.

Delancey

getz wrote: »

i suppose the battle of the north atlantic was also a big factor,if the convoys had not got been able to get to brittain,that would have been the end.

Certainly in the early years of the war and before US entry it was a close run thing - thereafter the colossal industrial power of the US could simply out produce the German sink rate.
If the Germans had a decent fleet of U-Boats in 1940 as opposed to the few dozen ocean going subs they had , the result for Britain could have been disastrous.

indioblack

Delancey wrote: »

It's true the selection of drop zones so far from the bridge was a huge handicap to the Britiish though had all the force made it there I'm not convinced it would have altered the final outcome.
The troops would still have run out of ammunition and faced Panzers , they might have held out longer but I suspect surrender would have been the ultimate result.

As an aside I was privileged to meet a veteran of the Arnhem operation a few years ago and it was fascinating to hear his insights into what went wrong - he didn't blame the weather , drop zone location , crap radios , the relief column delay or any of the most written about issues - he laid the blame squarely on the Americans who in his view starved the troops at Arnhem of the promised air support.
Although I don't accept his view I did not challenge him directly , to do so would be IMO disrespectful to a veteran who was there but it was interesting nonetheless.

My first employer was from the same division. Hard as nails and with a similar opinion of the Americans as your man. I was only 15 and too young, green and inexperienced to offer a different view of the Americans in general and Arnhem in particular. As they approached the drop zone this man and the rest of the stick were unable to jump - the line had snagged I guess. As aircraft were forbidden to turn around over the drop zone, for obvious reasons, they had to fly on and then back to England.

KerranJast

Wasn't there bad weather in the UK and Western France over the start of the operation limiting Allied Air cover? Also once the Panzers got into Arnhem I suspect hitting them from the air would be difficult.

Delancey

KerranJast wrote: »

Wasn't there bad weather in the UK and Western France over the start of the operation limiting Allied Air cover? Also once the Panzers got into Arnhem I suspect hitting them from the air would be difficult.

Yes , weather in England badly effected air operations , reinforcements and re-supply drops were delayed by fog .
Another much written about failure at Arnhem was the radios the British were issued with - they simply did not have the required range to permit contact with forces outside Arnhem and were largely useless , the result was that it was impossible to call in air strikes and I suspect that this was why the US Air Forces did not appear as promised.

Reekwind

getz wrote: »

i suppose the battle of the north atlantic was also a big factor,if the convoys had not got been able to get to brittain,that would have been the end.

There is however the legitimate question as to whether a British capitulation would have changed the outcome of the conflict. In the final analysis the war was won and lost on the Eastern Front; the true impact of a British surrender, either through hunger or invasion, must be measured by how it would have affected that theatre

Capt'n Midnight

Reekwind wrote: »

There is however the legitimate question as to whether a British capitulation would have changed the outcome of the conflict. In the final analysis the war was won and lost on the Eastern Front; the true impact of a British surrender, either through hunger or invasion, must be measured by how it would have affected that theatre

Which invasion fleet sailed directly from the US rather than stopping off in the UK for reasons of secrecy ?

Of course they would have needed local air superiority , and the UK is a handy aircraft carrier. But the US was churning out aircraft carriers.

Reekwind

Yes, a British collapse would have precluded a D-Day (though not perhaps a Torch, where Task Force 34 did sail directly from the US, or campaigning in Italy) but I would argue that this is not critical to deciding the final outcome of the war. German defeat was inevitable so long as the Wehrmacht was losing on the Eastern Front and I do not believe that the continued presence of Britain in the war would have significantly affected operations in that theatre