On D-Day, 80% of the German military was fighting Russia

Is there a counter to the argument that the importance of D-Day is over blown because 80% of the Nazi forces were committed to the Eastern front fight with Russia?
http://www.counterpunch.org/dday06042004.html

'...The Germans had diverted only 60 divisions on the Western front, while the Hitler command maintained 259 divisions and brigades on the Soviet-German front...'

Are these numbers accurate?

Is it the battle of Stalingrad that was the turning point in WWII? I dont like the idea, but should the world have celebrated the 60th anniversay of that battle more than it does D-Day?

I don't think there was any one turning point in the war, nor do I think that fighting 60 German divisions is any less honourable than fighting 259 But in the West D-Day is more important as it marked the start of the campaign to take France back and demolish the German war-making machine. It also caused the Germans to divert resources from the Eastern Front. I think there were complaints from the Russians that the Western Allies weren't doing enough of the fighting.

The west should remember that the majority of the destruction of the main arm of the German military, the army, was done in the east. The Luftwaffe was defeated largely in the south and west, the navy in the west. By mid 1944 the majority of the Luftwaffe was operating against the west, the forces in the east had 2,392 aircraft, in the west there were 3,532, plus 647 aircraft in the Balkans and north which could operate against the east or west, as of 31 May 1944.

Germany and the Second World War Volume V part 2, endpiece.

German Army strength 4 April 1944, 238 divisions and 28 Brigades, where brigades can mean independent regiments as well as a Brigade in German (not British) terms.

Of these 138 divisions and 24 brigades were in the east. In addition there were 27 axis allied divisions and 1 brigade in the east.

'North' is a problem, it consists of Finland and Norway, so it faced both ways, the 19 Finnish divisions and 9 German divisions were facing east, 10 German divisions and 2 brigades holding Norway, so facing west.

So the anti USSR forces were around 193 divisions and 27 Brigades.

The south east was the anti partisan operations in the Balkans, where there were 19 German divisions and 1 Brigade and 11 axis allied divisions and 14 brigades. Whether you count this as allied or local fighters is up to you, it appears to be a mix of the local fighters with western allied support and the threat of western allied invasion.

The south west front in Italy held 20 German divisions and 1 axis allied division.

The western front held 62 German divisions and 1 brigade.

So I make it the forces the western allies were fighting in Italy and France come to 81 German divisions and 1 brigade, plus 1 axis allied division versus 193 divisions and 27 brigades in the east.

In addition the threat to Norway tied up another 10 divisions and 2 brigades, and the Balkans tied up another 19 German and 11 axis allied divisions, plus 1 German and 11 axis allied brigades.

To make the anti USSR numbers in the web article it looks like you need to add in the forces in the Balkans as 'anti USSR' and drop the forces in Norway and Italy from the 'anti west' forces.

Probably the first thing that needs to be defined as turning point,

Does it mean the Germans were prevented from going further, so the Battle of Britain qualifies? As then does the battle of Moscow for the northern part of the main eastern front.

Does it mean from then on for the war/front the Germans were always going backwards?

So we make the turning points, the March/April fighting in the Atlantic, the Alamein battles as far as the west is concerned? The allies first broke the 'front line' in the Atlantic then continued by breaking the daylight air defences in the first months of 1944, then the ground defences in mid/late 1944 and so on.

Stalingrad was a major success for the Soviets, it was followed by a major setback with the German counter attack. Kursk was the start of the situation in the east when the Germans were then effectively always going backwards.

Of course each country is always going to highlight the parts its citizens played a major role in.

Geoffrey Sinclair Remove the nb for email.

Yes. Don't just count the infantry units - have a look at the breakdown of panzer units, AFV's and artillery on all fronts, as well as the commitment of Luftwaffe resources. You're still not going to find something that dismisses the importance of the Eastern Front, though. It really was critical to the outcome of the war. What you might find is that there are several yardsticks for comparison, and some flatter one front over the other. A simple breakdown in all German units against all fronts emphasises the importance of the Eastern Front, while paying closer attention to where the better-quality units and aircraft were deployed reduces the relative dominance of the Russian front, but does not eliminate it.

I don't see why they both can't be celebrated. D-Day was critical to the liberation of western Europe and Germany, but in turn that was contingent upon continuing Russian survival in the war against Hitler up to that moment. None of this really should boil down to a simplistic, binary 'one-or-the-other' analysis: it took everything that it took to achieve the historical result.

Gavin Bailey

There is no doubt among knowledgable historians that the Soviets carried the bulk of the land war against Germany. That is not the same as saying they could have won by themselves. Even before Normandy they received enormous help from the West in the form of supplies, and the fact that Germany had to divert vast resources into the air and naval war. In addition, the campaign in Africa and then Italy tied down a number of top-quality German divisions which could have been very useful on the eastern front.

The real military accomplishment of the Normandy invasion is that it was done from the sea against a prepared and strong enemy. There were several dozen quality German divisions within an easy day's drive (under peaceful conditions) of the beaches. Those divisions could have easy overwhelmed the landing forces if everything didn't go right. Success required an incomprehensibly complex combination of secrecy, shipping, air and naval attack power and landing tactics, both from the sea and the air. To me, that's the real glory of the achievement.

There is another element in the historical importance of Normandy, one that relates to the post-war map of Europe. If the Western Allies hadn't established themselves in western Europe, there was a real risk that Stalin would have pushed to the Atlantic coast.

As to your question about the celebration of the battle of Stalingrad, the (former) Soviets do that, but the main reason for these memorials is not historical significance, it is the human element. There are many Normandy veterans still alive, and vast numbers more who knew them or know people well who knew them. That lends meaning to the event for those in the west, and to the eastern battles for those in that part of the world.

Note that we no longer celebrate the equally momentous battles of WW1 the way we used to, and the way we celebrate WW2 events now. That's because there's so few people who can relate to WW1 events on a personal level. In 30 years it'll be the same with Normandy.

Those are good numbers, thanks! When you factor in the Western Allies bombing campaign against the Germans, the naval battle for the North Atlantic ( the shipping route used to supply Russia, right? ) and the Southern Europe front which was also British/American, the share of the fight borne by Russia is at the 50% mark. And that does not include the forces fighting in the Pacific.

As others have mentioned, it is not only the quantity, but the quality and content of the forces that matters, too.

D-Day is not overblown because without it, the forces Hitler had in France (and in Africa/Italy previously) could've been added to his existing forces against Russia. Stalin was pleading for a western front all along to take the pressure off of him.

As others noted, Lend Lease provided food and weapons for the Soviet Union. It is doubtful it could've survived without it. Also, the bombing campaign conducted by the west against Germany helped.

It should also be noted that some of the Soviet Union's losses were its own fault. Before the war Stalin purged a great many good generals. This not only lost use of their skills, but frightened subordinates. The people were terrified that the slightest misstep would result in being taken away in the middle of the night, as has happened to so many Soviet citizens. The purges also hurt the preparedness of Soviet industry. The purges and secret police did not stop their work during the war. Last week's hero of the people became this week's enemy of the state.

In addition, Stalin ignored repeated warnings from numerous sources that the Germans were about to attack him.

Lastly, there is questions about Soviet strategy in the early days. Some suggest offensive measures were taken way too early before the army was ready and resulted in needless losses. Did Stalin's peace treaty with Hitler and land grabs of Poland and Finland help things any? It didn't make the Soviet Union a very sympathetic figure.

There is no real turning point. None of the big events (Alamein, Stalingrad, D-Day, Kursk, Italy etc) were substantial enough to really make a change. They were bad blows for the Germans, who could always rebound from them, but never permanently regain the initiative. It's like a boxer taking one punch after the other, none of them is a real knock out blow, but he is weakening, slowly going down ...

D-Day is probably the Beginning of the End (to use a Churchill-type expression) for nazi Germany.

If I had to pick a decisive battle, it would be the Battle of Moscow, which meant that the Germans weren't going to get a quick win. Even if they had won at Stalingrad (whatever that may mean - it certainly doesn't mean winning the battle once it had started) there would have been plenty of hard fighting left, and relatively little time to win the war before the West intervened in force.

As far as turning points go, the first candidate is the Battle of Britain, but the most likely is probably Kursk, which was the last time the Germans had a strong initiative, which they'd never lost before for very long.

They were bad blows for the Germans, who could always rebound Yup. Kursk is a turning point partly because of the battle of

<snip>

If this is the criteria, the turning point was the winter of 1941. By Spring, despite energetic attempts to find replacements, the German forces in the East were 625,000 men short of their authorized strength, and only one of the three Army Groups in the East could be rebuilt to a state fit for resuming offensive operations. From that point, the German Army was never able to recover the offensive power it had on 22 June 1941. And its decline continued from that point.

Stuart Wilkes