Which WW2 battle was more instrumental in defeating Germany?

Stalingrad was the most important battle of WWII. But it wasn't as savage as Guadalcanal.

 

Stalingrad was the most important because they used up their resources. You didn't even have that as a choice. Good grief.
Barberossa is too general. It was the battle of Stalingrad that really turned things around.

 

The Soviet Union could have mobilized much more soldiers, Germany was already in a position, where very young and elder people got mobilized for "Volkssturm".

The reason for Soviet Union not mobilizing more soldiers was, it was not necessary. People could work in industry and agriculture instead.

I'm not sure about the following numbers, but this is what I found.
The ratio with air planes at the begin was like 1:5 (3,500 German tanks vs. 20,000 Soviet Union airplanes), the ratio with tanks at the begin was like 1:10(2,000 German tanks vs. 20,000 Soviet Union tanks).

Soviet Union produced more later, so they probably had more all the time.

Operation Barbarossa had 3.6 million soldiers (Germans and German Allies combined) in the beginning, with 2.3 million actually being on the front.

The Soviet Union already had 4.5 to 5 million soldiers at this time.

When the war went on, the superiority of manpower and material of the Soviet side became more clear. Germany was not able to fill losses with reserves anymore, while Soviet Union could replace units, airplanes and tanks.

This advantage lead to strange Soviet strategies like sending soldiers into battle without own weapons or using tanks as rams against fortified places. Such strategies came with a high risk of losses and have been accepted.

 

Germany went against Soviet Union with 153 divisions, in Northern Africa there were how many, 2 German divisions? It took until the end of 1942, before German and American soldiers met for the first time there.

 

Please tell me you are kidding.

 

The Russians were also responsible for the majority of German casualties.

True, the Germans were busy occupying a large number of places, but the majority of the German Army was engaged in Russia.

Yes, the Germans were somewhat slow to fully mobilize their economic resources, but as you point out, German industrial production increased while the UK and the US were trying to bomb it into oblivion.

I have to disagree with this point. The war in the east wasn't being fought by the Russians for patriotism, for the flag or Mother Russia, or for Communism. The Russians were fighting for their very survival. The loss of Moscow would have been a setback, but it was neither strategically necessary nor would it have been a fatal blow to Russian morale. They would have fought on despite the loss of Moscow, or any other city, simply because they had no choice.

I have to disagree again. Yes, the attack on Pearl Harbor brought the US into the war in a big way, and provided this country with a reason to fight, the US would have become involved in the war in a few months even if the Japanese hadn't attacked PH. We were already sending vast amounts of war materiel to the British. We were actively patrolling the Atlantic hunting for German submarines, and in October of 1941, two months before Pearl Harbor was attacked, the US Navy was issued orders to shoot on sight any German or Italian ships encountered on the high seas. We were going to fight, it was just a matter of time.

 

Wanderer,
Totally agree with all you said. Thank you.

 

No need in a superiority in numbers ? A strange assertion.Having a numerical advantage the USSR could finish the war faster.

The USSR was in dire straits,too.Women were called up for military service,as far as I remember,about 400 000 women served in army during the war,and even 15-17 years teens ( cabin boys in the Navy ).However, the Soviet Union was able to mobilize 17% of the population,but Germany could mobilized 25%.And the reason of it was simple : only in German factories during the war worked 10 millions of qualified workers from Europe.Plus industry of continental Europe,wich worked for the Wehrmacht,as I remember,every third German tank was manufactured in Czech protectorate.In fact,it was not a war between Germany and the USSR,but the war between continentl Europe, united under the aegis of Germany, and the USSR.Of course,in the Nazi armies there were more Germans than other Europeans,but in the industry that worked for these armies,there were more other Europeans than Germans.

Yes. But at the direction of the main attack ( in Belorussia ) Wehrmacht had a significant numerical superiority.The first attacker always has such advantage .

You contradict yourself :

At the end of the war - yes,it was a result of victories, but not during the whole war ( see my previous post ).

 

No need in the way that Soviet Union had reserves and made progress. Losses became replaced, but keeping a balance between production and military was important.

Yes, production was supported by workers from France and other parts of Europe and German women worked in industry. What I wanted to say is, that Germany could not mobilize more German soldiers on a large scale at the end of the war. There still were units from German Allies, having women fighting probably has not be seen as an option.

Locally, yes.

The superiority of manpower and material was always there, it only became more clear at the end of the war in the meaning, that the effects were more obvious. German military may have thought, the chances for a military victory in the East were not bad. Germany was probably surprised about the fast victories before, especially in Poland and the Soviet Union had some problems against much smaller Finnish military. The longer the war was going on, the more realistic people got. This is what I wanted to say with it becoming more clear.

The strategy was not about preventing losses in the beginning, too, in Soviet Union, Stalingrad was an example for it. Not even civilians have been evacuated in the first weeks. Or think of Leningrad.

 

There were 3 battles that turned the tide on Hitler.

1.) El Alamein - Before El Alamein the western allies always lost. After El Alamein the west always won.

2.) Kursk - Most people say Stalingrad was the turning point. What Stalingrad did was turn the fight into a tie. It was Kursk that finished the war on the Russian front.

3.) Battle of the Atlantic - Without beating the U-Boat threat, the western allied could not have opened up a second front on the Germans. By beating the German navy, the west could send a steady war supply to feed the armies that eventually won the war against Hitler.

 

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/War-Without-Mercy-Power-Pacific/dp/0394751728"]Amazon.com: War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War (9780075416524): John W. Dower: Books[/ame]

 

Stalingrad was defiantly worse.

 

Did the Germans and Russians commonly use the body parts of their enemies as souvenirs and tools?

The Germans and Russian troops were able to surrender to their enemies. This wasn't possible on Guadalcanal. In the Pacific Theater surrender wasn't an option until the very end of the war.

 

You don't consider forced mass charges against the germans worse?

Did you take into account the Germans fire bombing the city?

 

I'm talking about the level of savagery demonstrated by the combatants. Russians and Germans killed each other, but didn't scalp each other. The Japanese took the time to torture, castrate and mutilate Americans who surrendered. The US Marines made letter openers from Japanese leg bones, and boiled down IJA heads so the flesh would come off of skulls kept as souvenirs. The Marine Corps had people checking the duffle bags of Marines returning to the States to check for "souvenirs."

 

There was no time to do that sort of stuff. Combine the snipers, mass charges, the horrendous hand to hand combat, and the german resolve knowing what would happen if they surrendered. You're also forgeting the massive firebombing. It killed over 40,000 people. It gave both sides places to hide, and in the Russian winter. Temps. dropped below -19oC, which is below 0.

 

Savagery is the issue. Germans and Russians did surrender to each other in large numbers. IJA and USMC couldn't surrender to each other.

 

The germans were forced to fight on. What they did to the Russians, was pretty bad. They knew what kind of revenge the Russians would give them.

 

Very few Germans POWs returned to Germany, but they weren't tortured, killed and mutilated on the spot, or within hours after the end of a fire fight.

Only one other conflict in American history was a savage as the combat of the Pacific Theater of WWII. That would be the Indian Wars.

 

The Germans got off relatively easy, all things said and done. They could have all been put in concentration camps, and given "special treatment".

 

The Australians defeated the Germans at Tobruk and that was before El Alamein.

 

You mean like the Japanese Banzai! charges against Henderson Field?!

 

I have to agree with you, while the fighting in the Pacific between America and Japan was not as big or critical as the fight between the Soviets and Nazis it was certainly more violent, although not by much. It is hard to decide which is worse, clearing minefields using infantry walking with arms linked (Soviets) or massive suicide attacks (Japan)

 

P.S. Stalingrad was still worse.....

 

Really? Stalingrad had rampant malaria, beriberi, foot rot, malnutrition (the Japanese referred to it as "starvation island"), and other assorted diseases? Constant rain (to the point the troops on the island were NEVER dry), tropical heat and steambath humidity?