Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 2nd, 2018, 02:59 PM   #81
Citizen
 
Joined: Jan 2018
From: England
Posts: 1

Stalingrad for sure. Without winning the battle the red army wouldnt of marched for berlin at all. But without D-Day the allies could of invaded from the south. So Stalingrad without a problem
mke42891 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 2nd, 2018, 03:19 PM   #82
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2017
From: Las Vegas, NV USA
Posts: 1,895

Quote:
Originally Posted by mke42891 View Post
Stalingrad for sure. Without winning the battle the red army wouldnt of marched for berlin at all. But without D-Day the allies could of invaded from the south. So Stalingrad without a problem
Stalingrad because the Germans likely wouldn't get another chance. The Germans had reached their southern objective on the AA line. Many things could have gone wrong on D day which was one day compared to three months for Stalingrad. D day would have had to be lost on the first few days at most. Once the allies established the beachhead, overall allied superiority would prevail. A defeat on the beaches would be a setback, but the allies could return.

Last edited by stevev; January 2nd, 2018 at 03:36 PM.
stevev is online now  
Old January 2nd, 2018, 06:32 PM   #83
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,591

D-Day

Nazi Germany lost the war with the failure to take Moscow in late 1941.

D-Day didn't decide who would win the war, but rather it decided where the political boundary between the liberal-democratic West and the communist dictatorship East would be drawn in Europe.
Poly is online now  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 10:38 AM   #84
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2013
From: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 9,147

Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
Stalingrad, no question about it. Even before D-Day, German army was losing everywhere, and there was nothing to do about it. USSR had more resources, people, and outproduced Germany. Stalingrad was major turnover, while D-Day changed very little.
What D-Day changed was it kept the SU from invading all of Europe to the English Channel. Maybe you think that’s “very little”, but I, and most western Europeans, probably think that is a very big deal. D-Day also made it easier to defeat the Germans because it significantly lowered the number of German troops opposing the SU, again, a very big deal. D-Day also inspired Hitler to launch his last great offensive of the war, the Battle of the BUlge, after which German had no reserves of any kind.
royal744 is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 12:55 PM   #85

Lucius's Avatar
the governed self
 
Joined: Jan 2007
From: Nebraska
Posts: 16,289

The western allies' landings in Africa, Italy, the south of France, and at Normandy were important to bringing the war to an end as soon as possible.

The Red Army caused the bulk of the German casualties. They brought the war to an end, period.

Last edited by Lucius; January 3rd, 2018 at 01:00 PM. Reason: erod.
Lucius is online now  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 01:15 PM   #86

Lord Fairfax's Avatar
Tickling the Dragons tail
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Rupert's Land ;)
Posts: 2,817

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
D-Day

Nazi Germany lost the war with the failure to take Moscow in late 1941.

D-Day didn't decide who would win the war,
but rather it decided where the political boundary between the liberal-democratic West and the communist dictatorship East would be drawn in Europe.
Indeed, D-day was important to the status of post-war Europe, but his question was only about WWII, not the aftermath


>
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bogdan Stefanovic View Post
what was more important for the course of WW2?
Lord Fairfax is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 03:50 PM   #87

Edric Streona's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: Japan
Posts: 3,496

For the course. Stalingrad. Germany was doomed from that point. Might have been doomed a bit earlier with Hitler’s constant meddling. But Stalingrad certainly blunted German military strength.

DDay was still a key bench mark moment.
Edric Streona is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 11:10 PM   #88

vans's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Wessex
Posts: 1,678

Stalingrad was a major blow to the German Army but it was still a very powerful organisation. Kursk was the real turning point. After Kursk there was no way for the German army to recover.

Therefore, between Stalingrad and D-Day I would go for D-Day. But if it was D-Day vs Kursk I would go for Kursk
vans is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 11:16 PM   #89

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 22,591
Blog Entries: 19

Interesting question ...

personally I think that the failure on the Eastern Front determined the final defeat of Germany. If Hitler was able to take over Russia, with all its resources [and manpower to exploit totally free] Germany would have had well more cards to play on the Western Front and in Northern / Central Italy to stop the advance of the allied forces [overall fuel, tanks and planes ... produced in Russia by enslaved workers].

Usually it's the first great defeat to start the process which carries a power to lose a war [there have been recoveries in history, but they have been not so common and in the first technological mobile war, WWII, a main defeat meant the beginning of that process without doubt].

So ... Stalingrad.
AlpinLuke is offline  
Old January 4th, 2018, 12:01 AM   #90

History Craft's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2015
From: Romania
Posts: 1,711

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlpinLuke View Post
If Hitler was able to take over Russia, with all its resources [and manpower to exploit totally free] Germany would have had well more cards to play on the Western Front and in Northern / Central Italy to stop the advance of the allied forces [overall fuel, tanks and planes ... produced in Russia by enslaved workers].
This sounds like a really good speculative history threat (doesn't one already exist?).
Many ways things could have went, depending on how early the USSR would have been defeated.

We got to consider that nukes would have been dropping soon enough and that the Reich also had an Europe worth of partisans fighting on.

Also, one of the Reich's main allies (Romania, a historical and natural ally of France, Britain and the USA) was really bitter about the deal it got and it would have been really eager to change sides.

The Reich is legendary for what a good job it did economically tho (Albert Speer, I'm looking at you boy!) and would have had many battle-hardened veterans by then;
Would have been a very interesting scenario.
History Craft is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
dday, stalingrad



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stalingrad or Moscow, which was more decisive for the German defeat? neofelis War and Military History 71 December 22nd, 2010 05:24 PM
David M. Glantz Fights for the Truth About Stalingrad Belloc War and Military History 1 April 3rd, 2010 03:47 PM
Stalingrad Scourge Speculative History 60 August 12th, 2009 02:33 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.