Which WW2 battle was more instrumental in defeating Germany?

No, I was refering to the mass charges, where if you retreated you would be shot at by your own men.

 

What about the IJA charges at Bloody Ridge defended by Red Mike Edson and the men of the First Marines?

 

Those mass charges at Stalingrad, half were given guns and ammo. The rest just ammo, and they were expected to charge.

 

Where do you see the superiority?Of a total manpower?Let's count:the population of the USSR was 200 millions.The population of Germany was 90 millions,plus the population of Italy 45 millions,plus the population of Romania 20 millions,plus the population of Hungary 10 millions,plus the population of Slovakia 5 millions,altogether 170 millions.Plus the population of the occupied countries that in one way or another fought or worked for Nazi.

No superiority of a total manpower.

The superiority of numbers of soldiers?As we couls see there was no such superiority,too.(http://www.politicalforum.com/histo...le-more-instrumental-defeating-germany-5.html)

The superiority of materials?

In 1941 the steel production in Germany and it;s allies was 31,8 millions of tonns - in the USSR 18,3 millions of tonns;

the coal production in Germany ind it's allies was 400 millions of tonns - in the USSR 165 millions of tonns;

Germany also had a two- or a threefold advantage in the production of metal-cutting lathes,electric power,etc.Only in the oil production the USSR had a superiority:31,5 millions of tonns vs German 7,5 millions.

The USSR had less materials than Nazi bloc ,but it managed to produse more military equipment.This means,that the USSR had the advantage not in quantity but in quality.

 

You're forgetting the Western front. The Germans and their allies had to devout millions of troops to defend Africa and Europe. They were also subject to massive air attacks on key industries and the full numerical and industrial might of the U.K./Commonwealth/U.S.

 

I remember that the Western front was opened less than a year before the end of the war.I remember also that on the Western Front fought less than one third of all the forces of Germany,in addition, they were second-rate troops.

In Africa fought 10 German and Italian divisions,that is 3,5% of Nazi forces.

 

1) North Africa and Italy were years before D-Day as was the air war. The Western front troops on the Axis side were definitely NOT second rate troops. The SS units that attacked the 101st Airborne during the Battle of the Bulge were some of German's most elite.

The U.S./British/Commonwealth defeated the German Navy and Airforce almost on their own. Yes, the Soviets did face more than 2/3s of the German GROUND troops.

 

Awesome........ but the SS units that attacked the 101st were in no way the majority of German troops on the Western front so point failed.

 

The US propaganda machine that convinced Americans that their country wins everything.

 

Thank god then for comic books, and Donald Duck.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBNXHeCCdRM"]YouTube - ‪Donald Duck - "Der Fuehrer's Face" (1943)‬‏[/ame]

 

7' 53'' - Do you really expect me to watch that?

It's Americans who mainly provide the comedy here.

 

I'll sum it up. Donald Duck awakes in Nazi Germany. That's about it.

 

It might be if it made any sense.

 

Watching it is easier than explaining it.

 

I'll give it a miss.

 

In fact, Germans wounded on the Russian Front could end up on the Western Front to recover from their wounds.

 

Your choice.

 

How is this debate still going on?

 

They could....prior to June 6th 1944. Units were sent to the West for occupation duty to refit and rearm because at that time there wasn't any fighting.

 

Translation: I've got nothing of substance to add to the discussion.

 

BUMP!...sorry I had to bump this back up and add my opinion...

as has been mentioned Barbarrossa wasn't a battle it was an invasion plan and the Germans carried it out successfully...

I've read the entire thread so excuse me if I missed anyone else who may have mentioned it...the Battle that was most instrumental in defeating Germany...The Battle of Britian...every miltary authority knows starting a two front war is a potential disaster even Hitler was aware of it, he gambled and lost...everything after that point no longer mattered...

 

Well the BoB wasn't the start of opening a two front war so why not say the Invasion of the Low Countries?

 

The same Eastern Front (read the malicious tyrant Stalin) that did a 'deal' with Hitler that a gave him time to wage unrelenting war on the Western Front. Stalin was asponge on the Wester Allies. But that doesn't diminish the bravery of his soldiers although it is well recorded that any Soviet soldier who retreated from the front line was shot!

It's a slap in the face to to declare the Eastern Front won the war, when thousands of Allied seamen died in the freezing waters of the Baltic Sea bringing thousands of tons of equipment to the Soviet Union, without which it would not have survived.

 

I suppose you have a point but if you want to be technical about it Germany didn't start the two front war England and France declared war on Germany. Hitler had no intention of going to war with Britain and didn't expect Britain to go to war over Poland...but once that was done Germany had no other option but to eliminate the Brits, he failed and the OP question was which battle was instrumental in Germanys ultimate defeat, it was the BoB...

without Britain defeat Germany's industrial base is pounded by bombing...

without Britain's defeat Germany failed to gain Britain's industrial capability...

without Britain's defeat Germany failed to gain Britain's Navy and ship building capability...

without Britain's defeat the British commonwealth continues fighting and supplying Britain

without Britain's defeat Germany fails to gain complete control of the Mediterranean/Gibraltar/Malta/ Suez canal thereby access to the most prized asset of all, middle east oil...

without Britain's defeat Germany cannot prevent Britain from being used as launch point for invading continental Europe

without Britain's defeated invasion of soviet Union is not delayed, as Germany must deal with British troops in Greece a threat to German oil supply in Romania, as a result Operation Barbarossa is launched late and winter halts German advances allowing Russians to recover...

with Britain's defeat Germans control the Atlantic, Mediterranean, North Africa, Middle-east, it's industrial base stays intact, the US has no reason to support the hated soviets or even declare war on Germany, final assault launched in late spring early summer on Soviets is successful. USA accepts German domination of Europe...

Churchill read the situation correctly when he said of the BoB..."Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few"

 

IMO, it was the Allied bombing that finished the Germans. That destroyed their industrial war machine base. Of course, many things led up to that and no one thing really did the trick.