Which WW2 battle was more instrumental in defeating Germany?

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?

 

Germans focused almost all of their attention to the Soviet Union. The front at the West did not get much resources. If you would have asked, who was more important in the European theatre during WWII, Americans or Frenchies, now this would have been a question.

What?

Stalingrad. This is not an option, so I pick Barbarossa, even though this was a plan, not a battle. Kursk was more important. D-Day was not even a big battle, Americans only focus so much on it, because they only participated in smaller battles during both World Wars. Were Americans in a big battle at all since Gettisburg?

 

Germany had already lost by "DDay". "DDay" was a side show. Germany suffered 80% of its casualties against the USSR.

The answer is either Staligrand or Kursk. Kursk was the last time the Germans had the ability to try something. After Kursk they spent the rest of the war in the east reacting.




But without Operation Barbarossa, the Soviet Union would have been severely weakened, and possibly even defeated.

I think you're confused as to what Operation Barbarossa was. Operation Barbarossa was the invasion of the Soviet Union.

 

Eastern front won the war.

 

The Battle for Stalingrad was the turning point of the war and IMO the most instrumental.

Stalingrad represented an offensive by the biggest and most powerful German army (the 6th) against the city, where it was slowed, stopped, encircled, and eventually obliterated.

It was an absolute disaster for the Germans. Losing the city and the 6th army meant that the Germans had no effective capability to stop the Russian from advancing of Rostov, which would have cut off all the German armies and groups that were in the Caucuses. As a result, the Germans had to pull a hasty retreat out of the oil rich Caucuses, and their ability to control the desperately needed oil fields there.

Kursk was a failed attempt by the Germans to regroup and regain the momentum, but by that time they were already on the defensive.

 

Two things:

1) D-day was nothing! and I mean nothing the war had already been won by then.
2) Barbarossa is not a battle......

 

While I wouldn't characterize D-Day as the most instrumental, I wouldn't characterize D-Day as "nothing" either. It was the greatest amphibious invasion of all time, putting 160,000 men ashore in one day, and opened a second front, hastening the German defeat.

 

It was the third front first of all, secondly since the allies took so (*)(*)(*)(*) long to gather their strength of course it was a massive attack but that doesn't make it important. As for bringing about Germany's defeat sooner..yes of course I have to agree with that statement but I would say by only a few months it was over in 1945 regardless.

 

yep, anyone with a brain knows that

 

I would say half a brain haha.

 

Take Barbarossa out of the equation and you have several million more Germans on the Western Front. Not pretty.

 

Yeah, I discounted the Italian campaign.

I won't waste time is a semantic quibble about what "important" means.

 

American INDUSTRY won the war!

 

It certainly helped.

But it wasn't American industry that pumped out those scores of thousands of T-34s.

 

American government paid for a lot; but the Soviets would've resorted to slavery if it meant winning the war. So still, the Soviets won WW2.

 

No...but it supplied the trucks carrying fuel, ammo, and parts for those T-34's, it kept their crews fed & clothed. It supplied some of the aircraft covering those T-34's. It supplied some of the locomotives bringing those T-34's from the factory to the front. You had Soviet-built T-34's manned by soldiers wearing American uniforms, eating American food and riding in American trucks.

By 1944, something like 90% of the trucks in the Red Army were American. (The Soviets got the entire production from the Studebaker plant most of the war.) Without Lend-Lease aid from the United States and its gargantuan industrial base, the Soviets would have collapsed. American industry won the war.

 

No, it's what kept the Soviets from extreme immediate debt. Soviets won the war.

 

You are utterly disconnected from reality. Let me explain it again: the Soviet Union could build an army, certainly. However, they could not feed, clothe, or TRANSPORT it! They depended--entirely--on American aidd to do so. In particular, without all those Studebaker trucks, the Red Army would have collapsed.

 

The Soviets still produced most of their equipment. Plus while the trucks may have helped, the Germans were transporting things by horse.

 

Let me explain it yet again, third time now: the Soviet Union could build an army, certainly. However, they could not feed, clothe, or TRANSPORT it! They depended--entirely--on American aidd to do so. In particular, without all those Studebaker trucks, the Red Army would have collapsed.

 

You pretend to think that the Soviets couldn't build those things themselves. It helped; but the Soviets won the war.

 

And the US received aid from countries like Australia, so Australia won the war.

 

**************

 

The US supplied a number of trucks, sent uniforms, but I'm not aware that the US manufactured any parts for the T-34s or ammo or, supplied a significant portion of the food consumed by Soviet soldiers.

I'm also not aware that the US played any significant role in the production any of the primary Soviet aircraft used in the war.

I'd have to see reliable sources to credit that.

Your assertion that the Soviets would have collapsed is a speculative opinion, and one that is questionable, in my view.

While I am not discounting that the aid helped, I don't think that aid was particularly significant until 1943-44, which was after the Germans had been stopped outside of Moscow and Leningrad, and after the battle of Stalingrad.

 

Dude, the US supplied the USSR with robotic drones! The Soviets didn't even fight!