Which WW2 battle was more instrumental in defeating Germany?

Capt'n Midnight

Torch and the production of aircraft carriers shows while D Day might not have happened , invasions of Africa - Sicily - Italy could still have happened though on a longer timescale. Norway - Denmark could have been another route bypassing the UK.

280special

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The battle of Britain was also instrumental.

If Germany had invaded Russia 6 months earlier Europe would look very different now.

If Germany had invaded Russia in 1939 with, for instance, agreed use of Polish territory, how many other nations would have stood against them?

Once Germany had invaded Russia while fighting on three other fronts the Nazis were doomed, thank god !

Capt'n Midnight

280special wrote: »

If Germany had invaded Russia in 1939 with, for instance, agreed use of Polish territory, how many other nations would have stood against them?

How many helped Finland or the Baltic States ?

How many of Germany's enemies declared war on Russia when they invaded Poland ?

Delancey

The war in the East is where Germany was defeated but I find it difficult how to see this happening were German forces not required to fight on 2 fronts and Britain was crucial in this regard , no Normandy landings , no massed bomber campaign , etc.

Reekwind

Wikipedia tells me that there were 380k Germans soldiers involved in the Normandy campaign. There were almost 500k German casualties in the concurrent Bagration. This should give some idea as to the scale of the respective fronts

Now obviously a Soviet victory would be more bloody if German industry had not been hampered from the air or (a full year after Kursk) the D-Day landings had not tied up Nazi reserves, but neither decided the outcome of the war. German defeat became inevitable with the failure to take Moscow, compounded this with the disaster at Stalingrad. With Britain out of the picture it might take the Red Army longer to break down the Wehrmacht but the outcome cannot be in much doubt

dpe

Reekwind wrote: »

Wikipedia tells me that there were 380k Germans soldiers involved in the Normandy campaign. There were almost 500k German casualties in the concurrent Bagration. This should give some idea as to the scale of the respective fronts

Bear in mind that the Germans also had 400,000-600,000 men at any one time holding down the allies in Italy. Everyone tends to forget that (which pisses me off because my Granddad was wounded at Cassino).

Capt'n Midnight

Delancey wrote: »

The war in the East is where Germany was defeated but I find it difficult how to see this happening were German forces not required to fight on 2 fronts and Britain was crucial in this regard , no Normandy landings , no massed bomber campaign , etc.

Germany were already fighting in North Africa / Italy long before DDay.

What exactly did the bombing achieve before 1944 (apart from delaying the V weapons) ?
Please indicate it's effectivness relative to the lack of raw materials and production volumes (hint: Peak German Armaments production was around summer 1944 )

Fratton Fred

Reekwind wrote: »

Wikipedia tells me that there were 380k Germans soldiers involved in the Normandy campaign. There were almost 500k German casualties in the concurrent Bagration. This should give some idea as to the scale of the respective fronts

Now obviously a Soviet victory would be more bloody if German industry had not been hampered from the air or (a full year after Kursk) the D-Day landings had not tied up Nazi reserves, but neither decided the outcome of the war. German defeat became inevitable with the failure to take Moscow, compounded this with the disaster at Stalingrad. With Britain out of the picture it might take the Red Army longer to break down the Wehrmacht but the outcome cannot be in much doubt

There were 500k German casualties in Bagration, but the Soviets took three or four times that amount.

With the extra troops from the Western front, it is not a massive leap to see the amount of soviets casualties increasing even further.

Then add in a fully working Luftwaffe and a few extra Panzer divisions and I'm not so sure the outcome would have been so obvious.

St.Spodo

The D-Day invasion was important insofar as that it prevented Hitler from negotiating a truce with Stalin. Had the June 6th invasion been repelled, the Nazis could possibly have worked out a deal with the Soviets. When the beaches of France were taken, the German defeat was only a matter of time.

The bombing campaign over the Ruhr was also important in crippling the German war machine.

That said, the Soviet Union played a greater role in Nazi defeat than anyone else when we consider the scale of German losses. Thousands of tanks and planes along with millions of men killed/wounded/captured ultimately allowed D-Day to be a successful expedition.

Manic Moran

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

What exactly did the bombing achieve before 1944 (apart from delaying the V weapons) ?
Please indicate it's effectivness relative to the lack of raw materials and production volumes (hint: Peak German Armaments production was around summer 1944 )

Richard Overy, in his book Why the Allies Won, makes the following statement about the effectiveness of British and American bombing of the Third Reich: "At the end of January 1945 Albert Speer and his ministerial colleagues met in Berlin to sum up what bombing had done to production schedules for 1944. They found that Germany had produced 35 percent fewer tanks than planned, 31 percent fewer aircraft and 42 percent fewer lorries as a result of bombing.

Part of the reason the German peak armaments production hit in the middle of 1944 was that that was about the time that the Germans actually arsed themselves to gear up to a war production economy. They arguably could have produced much more than they did (but equally arguably would not have changed the final outcome, just the number of dead). Similarly, the Allies were a little behind the curve too: In the first four months of 1945, the Allies dropped over twice as much tonnage of bombs than in 1940, 1941, 1942 and 1943 combined (But not as much as the 650,000 tons of 1944).

I'm trying to find the source, but I believe the factory which produced StuG IIIs was sufficiently damaged that for a three-month period it was operating at 10% capacity of what it was for the month before it was bombed.

[Edit: Found it. Alkett's factory in Berlin produced 255 StuG IIIs in October 1943. It was bombed in November, and produced 23 StuG IIIs that month. Full capacity was not resumed until May 1944.]

NTM

Reekwind

dpe wrote: »

Bear in mind that the Germans also had 400,000-600,000 men at any one time holding down the allies in Italy. Everyone tends to forget that (which pisses me off because my Granddad was wounded at Cassino).

Fair enough. Completely forgot

Italy doesn't change much though. The vast majority of all German deployments occurred on the Eastern Front. The vast majority of all German losses occurred on the Eastern Front. By end 1941 the Germans had lost the opportunity to win the war, by the end 1942 they were destined to lose it. Nothing that happens on any other theatre alters this. It might change details or dates but after Stalingrad, regardless of events in France or Rome, Germany is going to lose the war

Fratton Fred wrote:

There were 500k German casualties in Bagration, but the Soviets took three or four times that amount.

That estimate is 3-4 times higher than any I've seen before. Source?

St.Spodo wrote:

The D-Day invasion was important insofar as that it prevented Hitler from negotiating a truce with Stalin

Why would Stalin consider a truce when he was on the verge of crushing Hitler?

Manic Moran wrote:

Part of the reason the German peak armaments production hit in the middle of 1944 was that that was about the time that the Germans actually arsed themselves to gear up to a war production economy. They arguably could have produced much more than they did

Tooze's Wages of Destruction sets about the myth of Speer's 'economic miracle' with a large hammer. Germany had largely been operating a "war production economy" since 1937 at the latest. The increase in capacity after 1943 (which was hindered by Allied bombing) was largely a result of long term capital investments coming on-line. Even then by 1944 the Nazi economy was a tottering mess, stained to breaking point by the immense demands of the war. It simply couldn't compete with the Soviet or US output

losthorizon

Judgement Day wrote: »

If the wicked Brits hadn't stood firm, alone, against the Nazis they would have rolled over the Russians unhindered by anybody.

IF the Germans had not decided to capture Kiev but had just kept on going to Moscow then Moscow would have been captured before the winter of 41-42. It was those few weeks when the German tanks were sent south and then the weather turned that more than likely decided the outcome of the battle for Moscow. In the end despite this the Germans got to about 15 miles from Moscow.

Fratton Fred

Reekwind wrote: »

That estimate is 3-4 times higher than any I've seen before. Source?

I'm getting my numbers mixed up. the Soviets did take more casualties though I believe, despite having three times more troops in the offensive.

if you look north as well to the Estonian offensive, particularly the battle of Narva, the Soviets took seven or eight times the number of casualties the Germans did.

Cherryfizz

Laguna Loire wrote: »

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 American entry into the war was a turning point in the war but I think you over estimate the significance of America in defeating the Germans. Yes the money, ships and manpower were needed but Roosevelt held off actively engaging in the war in Europe until Churchill had proven himself against the Germans. America was more than happy with its Policy of Isolationism which seems ironic in Todays World! German defeat in Russia was a huge turning point in the war as Hitler underestimated the Russians, over estimated himself and his generals like Von Paulus. The everyday German soldier took a mental beating knowing that they could be defeated! D.Day was not just Americans! The Russians were crying out for the Allies especially the Americans for a long time to open up a Second Front in the West and eventually D-Day came about! That reluctance by the Americans was resented by the Russians which would be one of the many causes of the Cold War between America and Russia.

St.Spodo

@Reekwind: I think it's conceivable that the war on the Eastern Front could've lasted until 1946 or even '47 had Overlord been a failure. Hitler would have the opportunity to move several thousand tanks and guns to the east; he could also strengthen his beleaguered army groups with up to hundreds of thousands of men from the west. Defeat of the western allies on the French beaches would've put him in a decent position to negotiate with Stalin. When the beach-head was secured and the Anglo-American armies moved into France, the chance was gone.

Reekwind

St.Spodo wrote: »

@Reekwind: I think it's conceivable that the war on the Eastern Front could've lasted until 1946 or even '47 had Overlord been a failure

Quite possibly, I'm not for a second denying that events on the West might have an effect on or delay Soviet victory in the East. But by 1943 the odds were so firmly stacked against Berlin that a Nazi victory was very unlikely. Put bluntly, the Germans could not compete with the Soviet war machine and, increasingly, the continually improving Red Army

Capt'n Midnight

St.Spodo wrote: »

Hitler would have the opportunity to move several thousand tanks and guns to the east;

what would they have used for fuel ?

St.Spodo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

what would they have used for fuel ?

That would definitely been a problem in the long run, I'm not denying that. I'm just making the point that a failed Overlord probably would have resulted in a Battle of the Bulge-type counter-offensive in the east at some stage.

Capt'n Midnight

St.Spodo wrote: »

probably would have resulted in a Battle of the Bulge-type counter-offensive in the east at some stage.

Kursk

Manic Moran

Kursk was an operational disaster from the start, though the Germans did make a good go of it. Bulge was a tad ambitious, but it was very well executed. Perhaps the Germans learned from Kursk?

NTM

Fratton Fred

Wasn't Kursk actually an offensive rather than a counter offensive?

jonniebgood1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Wasn't Kursk actually an offensive rather than a counter offensive?

I don't want to over complicate or confuse but from whos perspective do you mean- German or Russian? It also depends on other issues like the context of the battle, i.e. if its taken on its own or together with the overall eastern front.

So it was an offensive attack by the Germans on the first hand. It was in response to the red army progress after Stalingrad, so it could also be called a counter offensive if one wished to use a wider context (I would call it an offensive). In any case it dwarfed the western battle of the bulge in terms of scale and losses. Despite this it is not as widely known about. I think that the amount of information availiable about the western front in comparison to the eastern front colours peoples opinions on the subject and places greater importance on 'overlord' than is justified. If Overlord had not taken place it does not automatically follow that all German forces would have shifted east. An occupation force was still required as was defense forces against possible air and invasion attacks.

St.Spodo

Reekwind wrote: »

Quite possibly, I'm not for a second denying that events on the West might have an effect on or delay Soviet victory in the East. But by 1943 the odds were so firmly stacked against Berlin that a Nazi victory was very unlikely. Put bluntly, the Germans could not compete with the Soviet war machine and, increasingly, the continually improving Red Army

I still believe a failed operation in the west could've been used to drive a wedge between east and west. Stalin was, of course, deeply distrustful of the western democracies. They may have ended up with another non-aggression pact similar to the one in 1939, especially if the Soviets lost all confidence in the west as an ally. One can't imagine it would be too hard for the Nazi propagandists to persuade Stalin that the capitalists hadn't the heart for the fight.

St.Spodo

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

If Overlord had not taken place it does not automatically follow that all German forces would have shifted east. An occupation force was still required as was defense forces against possible air and invasion attacks.

Another invasion of France would be impossible for at least a few months. This would free up at least some German forces. Add to that, Churchill already needed a lot of convincing that Normandy was the right place for an invasion of Europe. I don't believe the British would've invaded France again; an attack of the Reich from it's ''soft underbelly'' in Italy and an invasion of the Balkans would surely have best pleased the British, if not the Americans.

Fratton Fred

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I don't want to over complicate or confuse but from whos perspective do you mean- German or Russian? It also depends on other issues like the context of the battle, i.e. if its taken on its own or together with the overall eastern front.

So it was an offensive attack by the Germans on the first hand. It was in response to the red army progress after Stalingrad, so it could also be called a counter offensive if one wished to use a wider context (I would call it an offensive). In any case it dwarfed the western battle of the bulge in terms of scale and losses. Despite this it is not as widely known about. I think that the amount of information availiable about the western front in comparison to the eastern front colours peoples opinions on the subject and places greater importance on 'overlord' than is justified. If Overlord had not taken place it does not automatically follow that all German forces would have shifted east. An occupation force was still required as was defense forces against possible air and invasion attacks.

Hollywood didn't make movies about the eastern front. It would be interesting to know how much the Russians knew about Overlord. The Russians were very good at overlooking a lot of points in WWII, particularly battles they lost.

Reekwind

St.Spodo wrote: »

I still believe a failed operation in the west could've been used to drive a wedge between east and west. Stalin was, of course, deeply distrustful of the western democracies. They may have ended up with another non-aggression pact similar to the one in 1939, especially if the Soviets lost all confidence in the west as an ally. One can't imagine it would be too hard for the Nazi propagandists to persuade Stalin that the capitalists hadn't the heart for the fight.

To put this in context, Stalin has agreed to the Casablanca Declaration (ie, to demand unconditional surrender from Germany) in 1943 and by June '44 the Red Army was in the process of destroying the last major Wehrmacht concentration on the Eastern Front. Oh, and 20+ million Soviet citizens were dead

I just don't see any reason why Stalin would abandon a position of immense strength, essentially the ability to reshape the post-war order, and ally himself with a defeated enemy simply because of suspicions of the Allies. The man was paranoid but not stupid

St.Spodo

Reekwind wrote: »

To put this in context, Stalin has agreed to the Casablanca Declaration (ie, to demand unconditional surrender from Germany) in 1943 and by June '44 the Red Army was in the process of destroying the last major Wehrmacht concentration on the Eastern Front. Oh, and 20+ million Soviet citizens were dead

I just don't see any reason why Stalin would abandon a position of immense strength, essentially the ability to reshape the post-war order, and ally himself with a defeated enemy simply because of suspicions of the Allies. The man was paranoid but not stupid

I don't think he'd make a military alliance with the Reich, but perhaps a very favourable territorial one was on the cards. Mussolini urged Hitler to make peace with the Russian in 1943 so it seems contemporaries in the Axis saw it as, if nothing else, a possibility.I never said Stalin would have negotiated as we can never tell for certain, but in comparison to the actual events, a defeat of the western allies would put him in a relatively good position to do so.

Another possible permutation if Stalin hadn't negotiated would be the Red Army arriving at the English Channel. Thankfully D Day prevented this; the most frightening of all possible scenarios.

loldog

Kursk was the biggest event in the whole war. It was make or break for both sides.

.

knird evol

Materialschlacht

getzls

Without reading through the answers Russia won the war. The USA would have won it sometime. I read that 9/10 German soilders were killed fighting the Russians.