Which WW2 battle was more instrumental in defeating Germany?

Yes, it actually impacted it dramatically. The rise in German production was due to Germany's reluctance to fully mobilize until the last few years of the war. If you look at the increase in production in Germany versus the increase in the United States or Russia the difference is massive. The bombings were also very effective at targeting specific components of the Nazis warmachine/economy, like railroads and ball bearing plants. In addition, they drew air assets away from the Eastern Front and tied down tens of thousands of troops to man air defenses.

 

Completely wrong. The Russians had dozens of crack mechanized divisions in the East that utterly crushed the poorly equipped Japanese forces in China.

The U.S. would have either helped Russia while holding of the Japanese, or taken out the Japanese before going after Germany. You do remember the Germans declared war on the U.S. first, right? Also, comparing the Japanese and German forces is silly. In Island hoping campaigns the Japanese were as fierce as any army on the face of the earth. Their Navy was also top notch. The Germans lacked the Naval power to even begin to question their abilities in the Pacific. Panzers are of little use on tiny tropical islands.

The Battle of the Atlantic was most definitely won. The U.S. (and Canada) were able to send millions of men across the atlantic and millions of tons of supplies to its allies. That's a victory to me. It was also quite significantly important to the outcome of the war.

The Russians were unstoppable in 1944......as were the Americans/British/Canadians. It was a two front war, don't forget that. Of course the Russians did the lions share of fighting and dying on the ground, but you cannot dismiss the very important impact that British, American, Canadians, commonwealth etc. countries played in defeating Nazis Germany.

 

Kasserine Pass was the first battle that U.S. forces directly fought German forces. They learned a lot of important lessons. I'd point you to 1940 France where the Germanys utterly crushed their larger British and French counterparts. Rommel and his Afrika Corps were also crack veteran troops that, while understrength and poorly supplied, had pushed commonwealth troops around for years previously.

 

It's unlikely Germany ever really could have invaded Britiain. They lacked the amphibious assault ships and Navy to do so. The Royal Navy was still quite powerful at this time. Consider it took the U.S. (with British and Canadian help) years to build up for Normandy. The USN, RN, and Canadian Navy utterly dwarfed the German Navy and had much more economic clout. The British also had their colonies (including massive india) to draw support from.

 

No, the claim that the US arrived and bailed the Brits out of North Africa forgets that.

 

The Russians under Georgi Zhukov defeated the Imperial Japanese forces in several big battles in the mid to late 1930s. The result was the Russo-Japanese Nonagression Pact, and Japan turned its gaze toward a conflict with America, Britain, France and the Netherlands.

 

I've already stated that the Japanese were inferior to German troops, it would stand to reason they would also be inferior to russian forces seeing as the Russians defeated the germans...and that wouldn't have helped them receive supplies through the eastern port if Japan chose to close the sea routes as Japan was far superior to Russia in naval forces...Japan was foremost a naval power rather than land power...

given the US intense dislike for soviet union it's unlikey had Britain surrendered the US would have come to the USSR's aid...had Germany won the BoB it had no need to join Japan in it's war with the US...Island hoping vs weak colonial troops isn't a big accomplishment, Japans strength was naval and and determination of dug in defenders...

no it wasn't, it continued right up to VE day, the conflict tilted back and forth throughout the war, had it gone on longer Germany's new stealth submarines would have gained an enormous advantage...

not that I want to downplay any countries contributions IMO it was the British more than any other that saved the russians...delaying the German Barbarossa by invading Greece gave the Russians the break they needed to survive the invasion...of course going back to my original point that invasion of Greece would never have happened had Germany won the BoB...

 

a navy without air cover is target practice(Pearl Harbor)D-Day was possible because the allies had absolute air superiority, the Royal Navy would suffer the same fate witout aircover...apparently the German were capable of combined sea and air assualt of Norway dispite the lack of amphibious ships as well as an airborne invasion of crete...at the time in question summer 1940 and spring 41 the US was not at war and not a factor in any planned invasion of Britain, in 1940 Canada's navy consisted of 6 pre-war destroyers and Germany's U-boat fleet was wreaking havoc on shipping...and contrary to some opinions here the Germans were quite proficient at sinking ships by air assault...

 

The Pearl Harbor attack actually did very little damage to the US fleet.

As I've stated the Germans planned to cross the channel in Rhine River barges. The RAN wouldn't have even been needed to sink them.

 

are you now claiming trade between the US and Britain only began in 1939? the US did britain no favours before lend lease, all those goods were paid for...it was part of routine trade relations...the battle of atlantic ended on V-E day it was never won or lost, I don't have to rethink that those are the facts...

Stalin wouldn't have made a deal, the US had no need to it wasn't at war with any country at the time a detail you refuse to acknowledge...Churchill wouldn't have been around to propose lend lease in '41 had Britain lost the BoB in '40...and another point that apparently has slipped your mind Russia and Germany weren't at war either until June of '41 so what deal would Stalin have made with the US? he already had a deal with Hitler

my knowledge of history is second to none on this forum(not perfect but d**n good IMO), my daughter who has degrees in history and archeology tells me my knowledge is equivalent of a uni degree...

your link didn't work and just because you see color on a map does not make it suitable for air bases or their location...german interest in oil was paramount, it was the lack of oil that was ultimately the undoing of the German military, no oil, no fuel, without fuel planes don't fly, tanks don't roll and trucks don't haul...

against a much weakened axis, an axis that did not win the BoB and gain complete control of N Africa and the Mediterranean...the point you continually fail to grasp, with German victory over Britain the logistics for invasion of europe or N Africa become impossible, there is no British army to break down the Afrika Korp, the US faces an invasion with supply lines over 2K long through waters under the complete control of Germany then taking on a full strength Afrika Korp with green troops, the same depleted retreating Afrika Korp that spanked those green american troops...

at no time was The Bulge capable of succeeding, the Germans had insufficient equipment and fuel...after the war Field Marshall von Rundstedt said-" “all, absolutely all, conditions for the possible success of such an offensive were lacking.” and General von Mellenthin:
"The Ardennes battle drives home the lesson that a large-scale offensive by massed armor has no hope of success against an enemy who enjoys supreme command of the air. Our precious reserves had been expended, and nothing was available to ward off the impending catastrophe in the east."
Ultimately the hair brained scheme was Hitler's, he hoped the attack would cause the western allies to negotiate and help stop the Russians...once again american patriotism clouds an issue, a chest thumping patriotic battle is actually little more than a irrelevant sideshow...

if not for the RAF in the Battle of Britain you'd be speaking German and that's an undeniable fact!!!!

get a life, this is the history forum and the OP asked "what if history had unfolded differently at a key point in time"...too bad for you if your patriotic ego got bruised by the truth...

 

For some reason I hit the A key. That should have been RN.

 

agree 100%, it was an event that began a war but it did no significant damage to the US Navy...the Battle that mattered in the Pacific was Midway...the Japanese strength was it's Navy and it was broken at Midway...

not the best transport, calm reasonable weather would be a requirement but river barges do make this trip...and then you need to take into account the Germans would not commit to the invasion if they did not have control of the skies in order to destroy the RN, that done Operation Sea lion like the D-Day landing would go only when the weather permitted...it's all hypothetical of course but it could be done...

 

The problem for the Germans with invading in calm weather was demonstrated on the 6th of June, 1945. The Allies had weather stations in the Atlantic, the Germans did not. The Germans thought the 6th of June would still be bad weather while the Allies knew it would be good.

 

"Japanese troops were inferior to German troops'....thats a very silly comment. Germans excelled at manuever warfare. They had a terrible Navy and were very very poor at projecting power. They could barely supply their limited forces in North Africa. They COULD NOT have done what the Japanese did in the Pacific. On the other hand the Japanese were equally ill-equipped to handle mechanized warfare in Europe.

My initial comment was in regards to China. The Soviets could have done a number on Japanese occupation forces in China (as they did do in August 1945).

"Island hoping versus weak colonial forces"...another silly comment. I don't even understand what you're trying to say. Had Britain fallen (which is very unlikely) the U.S. would have delayed any real intervention in Germany sans supplies to the USSR and devoted all its resources to crushing Japan. Once Japan was defeated they would have then focused on Europe. The Russians alone, without allied intervention, would have likely given up Moscow and quite a bit of land. Germany would not have succeeded in defeating and occupying all of Russia. From there it's difficult to guess how things would turn out. The U.S. could have devoted its massive fleet (many times bigger than any other in the world) and at least 1 million more men from the Pacific to operations in Europe. When you mix in nuclear weapons and intercontinental bombers that the U.S. had in the works it's an interesting scenario. Ulimately I don't seen any possible way that Germany could have defeated both the U.S. and the Soviet Union at the same time. When you consider added support from Canada and commonwealth countries you're talking about a massive force fueled by a U.S. economy that was producing more weapons in 1945 than the rest of the world combined.

The delay for Barbarossa wouldn't have mattered in the end. The Russians weren't doing much to prepare for a German invasion. Stalin refused to believe that Hitler would double cross him so soon after they joined forces to take out Poland. The Russians were NOT frantically preparing their defenses during the delay of Barbarossa. Would the Germans have succeeded in taking Moscow? Perhapes, but Moscow was really only symbolic. Russian industry had been moved well behind the lines. The Russians gave up land to the Germans in exchange for time to mass their forces and get their industry ready. Russia was simply too massive a country for German to ever successfully conquer. The Nazis' terrible conduct in occupied territories in Russia ended any hope of that. Stalin could have sat on the Ural Mountains and continued the war indefinitely.

The Germans had tons of test weapons that were never produced in mass. The stealth submarines are just another one of them. The Germans were never effective at producing large numbers of functional weapons.

 

Again I never said anything about trade did I? I have only mentioned lend lease because you did. The fact that the goods were paid for or not does not amount to anything. The goods, fuel, spare parts, medical supplies, clothing, GRANT TANKS to bail out Monty's butt, were collected and send to Britain or Africa via the North Atlantic. It was Britain’s lifeline and had it been cut Britain would have fell. That is pretty plain, simple and undisputable.

You can stick to your opinion, at the end of the day it is just that. Those of us who study history without forming opinions can just look at the, heck let’s say D-Day for instance and know those supplies and troops came across a SECURE Atlantic to help with the defeat of Germany. I need not say more about who won or lost!!!!!

"Stalin wouldn't have made a deal, the US had no need to it wasn't at war with any country at the time a detail you refuse to acknowledge.."

Then that would give Pearl a more important status than BOB, it brought the US in on the allies side. You cannot know what would have happened you are just guessing.

Look at the map, any map doesn't matter to me. Give Germany the whole Northern part of Africa that doesn't matter to me, the US could build an airbase with striking distance of any North African country. Right and Britain was getting these supplies from ---THE US!!!!

"at no time was The Bulge capable of succeeding"
Tell that to any man who fought the battle. Heck it was important enough to divert all supplies’s to Patton and run him up to Bastogne. Yeah right excellent point on your part.

"get a life, this is the history forum and the OP asked"

Really, I noticed just one post back or so you plainly stated this was your OPINION AND THHAT OF OTHERS, as if that is supposed to mean something. So what are you doing here, it is a history forum now. I have been posting historical fact. You have "yes butted" everything anyone else has posted without learning or listening to what was being said. Actually I have a life and a bit of history knowledge. I don't go around and post my opinion as if it is some fact of history. I take in the facts which you seem to want to ignore and "yes but' everyone else’s position. You come across as if you are the only one who has any a position worth presenting. What makes you think I have a patriotic ego? I told you I had no dog in the fight, so where do you find anything patriotic about presenting facts? Speaking of the truth when are you going to post some truth???

"my knowledge of history is second to none on this forum"

Really that is your opinion and that of your daughter. Oh boy don't break your arm patting yourself on the back. And just what is that supposed to mean , we bow down to you concede every point to you, lift you up on the highest. Just what is this supposed to mean?

What you really mean is too bad I came long and exposed your biased and ignorance and busted your ego on a board you had dominated for some time. Welcome to the real world know it all.

George Purvis

http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

Well said. Darn well said.

George
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

The USSR first did Germany, then the USSR did Japan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria
Three weeks, Japan was done.

 

germans had no issues supplying N Africa, Hitler just refused to give it the supplies requested, he regarded it as a sideshow...

which differs in what way from what I posted...the Japanese completely lacked adequate armor to take on the Russian in a land war...the Japanese tanks were totally inferior to Russian T34's in numbers and quality...

what's silly is that you don't know...there was no real opposition to japanese forces, none of the British, French, Dutch or american troops had the strength of manpower, equipment or battle experience to resist the Japanese...

which the entire speculative point of the thread...

why? Germany would have no reason to declare war on the US, Western europe would be under a Nazi dominated/enforced peace...it would be a hard sell to the US people at the time that they should go to war with Germany, for what reason?

Germany never would have needed to occupy all of russia taking the major industrial centers may have been enough, advancing to the Urals definitely would have been enough as the bulk of Russia's population resides east of the Urals...

more than likely Russia would've been out of the war before the US defeated Japan, the US would have no incentive to start a war with Germany...the Germans also had there nuclear research and where a decade (or more) ahead of US in Ballistic missiles...the rocket scientists that led americans to the moon were the same ones that developed the V2 terror rocket...

you're not considering the commonwealth would no longer be at war if Britain is longer at war...and you're not considering if Germany defeats first Britain and then Russia it has access to the production of two of the three largest industrial powers, the other being the US...the combined output is greater than that of the US...

I disagree Stalin kept up the charade of trust right until the end upholding the non aggression pact agreements hoping to delay or provoke an attack he knew would eventually come... soviet forces were in place and massed on the frontier with Germany prepared for the attack that is not action of a man who believes there will be no attack... their error was in deployment, the Russians did not defend in depth which was essential vs. the Blitzkrieg(a lesson learned and reversed at Kursk) and suffered huge losses in "cauldrons"...

I adressed this earlier, there wasn't a sufficient population base past the Urals to continue the war or run a war industry...

other posters here would disagree as noted by those standing by Germany's industrial output throughout the war even while hampered by intense allied bombing...the allies also had tons of test weapons that were never produced in mass...

 

soviet forces were in place and massed on the frontier with Germany and were in the middle of preparing to attack but not be attacked that IS action of a man who believes there will be no attack... and that's why the Russians were not preparing to defend in depth which was essential vs. the Blitzkrieg invented by Russians themselves. Now Russians had to use
Blitzkrieg as a defense tactics and quite succesfully broke German Blitzkrieg in a few months. Germans did not have plan B and started improvising, but now the territory was too vast for improvisation. The battle at Moscow showed that the first time in history Hitler was stopped, reversed, the Blitzkrieg was broken ( lend lease or another words double price of blood and gold paid by the USSR in exchange for getting the US economy out of the Depression was not at Moscow)

Continiuos punches back, Blitzes at any opportunity... Nobody knows Marshal Shaposhikov, one of few most brilliant military minds in history.. http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19420216,00.html
Counting on vast space of Russia instead of the Blitzkrieg in defense would be a disaster for the USSR. This is one of the most stupid suggestions all historians, scientists and intellectuals has come with.

 

absolutely you mentioned trade, all goods prior to lend lease were paid for that is trade! not bailing out Monty's butt...the battle of the atlantic was never finished and that's simple and undisputable..."The Battle of the Atlantic, the fight for supremacy of the North Atlantic, was waged from 1939 until 1945 and pitted Allied naval and air forces against German U-boats, whose primary targets were the convoys of merchant ships carrying vital life-sustaining cargo from North America to Europe. " The Battle of the Atlantic ended on VE-day May 8th 1945http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/commun/ml-fe/article-eng.asp?id=6933

you study history according to US propaganda not actaual history...

lol, there would be no allied side for the US to be brought in on if the BoB was lost...a small detail you're continually unable to comprehend, which is the entire point of this speculative thread...

sorry you have no concept of geography, logistics or strategic planning...and once again if Britain falls the US has no incentive to go to war with Germany or save the even more hated soviets...

silly logic, regardless of futility of the battle no army is going to ignore an attack...and Patton was vastly overrated...hollywood hype...




"get a life, this is the history forum and the OP asked"

grow up if you don't like criticism then you shouldn't start slinging the mud...

lol as have you, that's kind of the point with a debate forum...and I listen very carefully...

whining about a speculative topic and getting your panties all in a knot over it...nope you have no life, it's just a "what if" thread, relax....

no patriotic ego??? let's look at some of your quotes..."saved Monty's butt", "you would all be speaking German now", "Patton was not stoppable either unless Monty got in the way" "North Africa was lost until the US bailed out the English"
Battle of the bulge, D-Day war winning events??? you're all about "the war according to the USA" and US patriotism....objective and neutral you're not, traits which are absolute requirement for a history buff....

it means exactly what it says, there are others here who's knowledge I regard as equal but I haven't met any on this forum I regard as superior...you implied you knew more than I , and you got my response...if you don't like slinging mud, don't start...

hardly, you display a typical case of the "Dunning Kruger Effect"....

 

yes I read this before, that the Russian positioning on the frontier was one of attack and not defense, that there was to be a preemptive attack prior to the expected Barbarossa...it could be true, I don't know of any historical documentation that supports it however...and that idea would explain the positioning of Russian troops...

hmmm maybe, if those tactics were meant to delay German advances until winter, then yes...but if the invasion wasn't delayed by British intervention in Greece then it likely wouldn't have worked and Moscow would've been captured...and then there was Hitlers personal interference, re-directing forces south instead of letting them advance on Moscow...

 

The U.S. fought the Japanese tooth and nail in the Pacific. Even on the Phillipines...arguably their greatest defeat, U.S. forces fought a very brutal and stubborn defensive action.

Germany declared war on the U.S. in 1941. Why would they NOT declare war on the U.S. if Britain had been taken? They would have been in a more powerful position then and thus more thanever willing to declare war on the U.S.


The output is not greater. GDP by country 1944 (Billions)

United Kingdom:346
France: 93
Italy: 117
Germany: 437
Austria: 29
Japan: 189
TOTAL: 1211
United States: 1499

http://www.onwar.com/articles/0302.htm

Even at the begining of the war the U.S. economy was double that of Germany. By 1943 it was bigger than all the major European powers combined.

See how that works? The U.S. had more industrial capability than any feasible combination of Axis powers COMBINED. Soviet output in 1944 was 437.

The Soviets did not mass against the Germans. They were caught by surprise and bled 2nd rate troops and territory while massing their forces in the interior. The Germans took hundreds of thousands of ill prepared Russian troops in the first few weeks of the invasion.

Russia was fighting for its survival. It could have reorganized behind the Urals and still been a threat to Hitler's plans...albeit much less potent than before.

 

Ummm, yes they actually did have issues getting supplies to N. Africa.
The Brits had all but knocked out the Italian navy in the Mediterranean, and were the dominant naval force. Where you come up with this, who knows.

It's well known that most tanks were inferior to the Russian T34.

 

One of the problems the Germans had in North Africa was the very long supply routes. That's why Tobruk was such a pain in Rommel's arse.

 

yup...

El Alamein was at the end of 2000 km supply line across N Africa, definitely a problem for Rommel as he was lacking air cover, something like 80% of the transport vehicles were destroyed on route to the front by british air attack...shortage of water and fuel was critical...

in 1942 axis convoy loses went from 1% to 9% per month the first half of 1942 to 20% per month in the later half of the year, convoy losses were expected the same occured to allies in the battle of the atlantic...certianly enough supplies reached N Africa getting them to the front was another matter...getting supplies to africa was less of problem than keeping them safe once they got there...