How important was Stalingrad

[petru]

QUOTE

First of all, without the defeat of the german forces at Stalingrad, d-day would have most lickely ened in a failure. One of the reasons the allies landed succesfuly was because many panzer divisions were wiped durning the battle of Stalingrad.

I doubt the material losses were decisive. The Germans made up the material losses, and even more important by the time the landing at the D-day was taking place new types of tanks were in service (more powerful than what it was lost at Stalingrad). I think the solders were more important. There were other major defeats, even exceeding Stalingrad, but Stalingrad was the first and it had a psychological importance.

[petru]

Do you think Stalingrad was really the turning point in the war?

[mabadesc]

Good question. This could really make for an interesting discussion.

I think there were several events/decisions/battles which could be interpreted as the turning point of the war.

I'd like to hear other people's opinion both on Petru's Stalingrad question as well as on any other moments which may have represented the turning point.

[Chandernagore]

Turning point.

I think it was.

The psychological factor was indeed devastating. For the first time in the war, a whole German army was wipped out, and this time the finest of the German infantry would not return.

The initiative shifted as the balance of forces around Army Group South (and in fact on the whole front) was destroyed. Never again would the German regain it. Not even at Kursk. From there on, it was down the slope in the East and the Russians would dictate the tempo of events.

There were other factors which added up : the Axis allies faith was badly shaken. The transport capacity of the Luftwaffe was crippled for good. Hitler inaugurated the disastrous serie of stand fast orders which would turn the OKW's tasks into operational nightmares.

"From Stalingrad on, each German soldier sent on the east front was viewed as either a hero or a martyr". G Jukes.

[PanzerKing]

I think that Germany's ability to bounce back and offer an amazing show of military strength at Kursk is evidence that Stalingrad was not the turning point. Hell, I even believe that if the Germans' could have prevailed at D-Day and regrouped before the Opergration Bagration, (this of course could have never happened with Hitler in charge) they could have held the Russians off for atleast another year or so and maybe get by with an armistace. I mean think about all the tanks, materials, and troops that were lost on the Western Front in the first 6 months alone, that could have really helped out the Eastern Front. Anyways, to answer the question at hand, I don't think Stalingrad was a crucial turning point.

[Chandernagore]

Kursk might have been an awefull and brutal battle but I'm not that impressed with it's strategic implications. By 43 it was significant that Germany had not even enough punch left to make a front size offensive (like in 42 in the southern sector) and could only spare enough men and material to engage a 100 km wide salient. The limited scope of that offensive tells much about the shrinking aims of the German high command in the east.

Not to mention that, in spite of the Germans choosing the time and location, it still failed miserably.

[rcristi]

QUOTE

Not to mention that, in spite of the Germans choosing the time and location, it still failed miserably.

In reality they were pretty close to win at Kursk but "the painter" call it off because of the landings in Italy. Anyway even with a win at Kursk the germans didn't have the means (anymore) to sustain the frontlines, so I agree that Stalingrad was the turning point on the Eastern Front.

On the other hand... you said: "the Axis allies faith was badly shaken" - agree; but not only that, remember that the Axis allies fought their battles with outdated equipment who was not good enough even in '41. My point is even if they retained the faith they could not have the slightest chance to success in face of the Soviet army of 43-44.

Best regards
Chris

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

In reality they were pretty close to win at Kursk but \"the painter\" call it off because of the landings in Italy.

It's right that the painter called it off but only when it's was obvious that the steamroller had run out of steam. Interesting position that Kursk was "close to a win". I rarely see it. If you just look at a map of the operations, you realize that the northern pincer never got anywhere (made WWI like advance). Only the southern pincer got any momentum and the penetration depht was nowhere enough to menace cutting off the salient (far from that).

So basically the German bled themselves white against a formidable defensive system. Why is more delicate to tell.

[rcristi]

Manstein himself wanted to continue the push. The Red Army had reserves saved up for their planned offensive "Operation Rumyantsev as well as other reserves and did not want to use them up stopping the Germans. The Soviet reserve for the front that the Germans were attacking in, 5th Guards and 5th Guards Tank, were already committed. Thus, if the Germans continued the Soviets would have no choice but to committ their reserves that were being saved for their upcoming offensive, thus, their offensive would be late, or not happen at all. The German Panzers in the area could have destroyed the Soviet Reserve as they did at Prokhorovka. As you noticed I don't consider Prokhorovka a Soviet win. The SS divisions lost there between 50 to 70 tanks and the soviet counterparts 5 times more. After all the germans were holding the ground at Prokhorovka after the battle... so they won. Even the Soviet High Command saw the risk of a German breakthrough. The offensives at Izyum and the Mius were launched with the purpose of drawing the German Panzers from Kursk.

Anyway in the end none of this matters as I said before even with a Pyrrhic victory at Kursk Germany will loose in the end.

Cheers

[dragos]

The fate of operation Zitadelle was taking shape from the first days of the offensive. In the north, the German 9th Army achieved only minor penetrations at the cost of 25,000 casualties within a week. In the south, Manstein's 4th Panzer Army succeeded in advancing 40 km but also at a high cost. After the encounter at Prokhorovka, the losses in panzers from the beginning of operation amounted to over 300. Even if half of the 5th Guards Army was also lost, the balance of power favored the Soviets and they quickly gained the initiative by launching counterattacks both in north and south.

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

the losses in panzers from the beginning of operation amounted to over 300

300 destroyed and 1600 damaged. The Russians had 1600 destroyed but they start from 5000 ! Zitadelle only worsened the effective tank ratio on the eastern front.

[dragos]

Definitely the turning point of the war was the end of 1942, with the two decisive defeats at El Alamein and Stalingrad.

Churchill said "before Alamein we never had a victory. After Alamein we never had a defeat."

[rcristi]

QUOTE

300 destroyed and 1600 damaged. The Russians had 1600 destroyed but they start from 5000 ! Zitadelle only worsened the effective tank ratio on the eastern front.

1600 destroyed (agree) but how many more damaged out of starting 5000???

[rcristi]

QUOTE

Definitely the turning point of the war was the end of 1942, with the two decisive defeats at El Alamein and Stalingrad. Churchill said \"before Alamein we never had a victory. After Alamein we never had a defeat.\"

Compared with Stalingrad, El Alamein was just a joke. You cannot consider El Alamein a turning point in WW2 because it didn't affect in a serious way the capacity of German armed forces as a whole as Stalingrad did. El Alamein was important for the british morale and is considered a turning point today just to counter ballance the Soviet achievements on the Eastern front. The WW2 was won (or lost) on the Eastern front.

Cheers

[rcristi]

QUOTE

Churchill said \"before Alamein we never had a victory. After Alamein we never had a defeat.\"

Yeah right! We all can remember the glorious British victory at Arnhem!

Best regards.