Was Stalingrad the turning point of the war?
400,000+ Germans, 200,000 Romanians, 130,000 Italians and 120,000 Hungarians KIA/captured, and for nothing. Obviously they could've been put to better use elsewhere and have won.
>>341437
OKH estimated the number of dead and missing inside Stalingrad at 209,529
>Was Stalingrad the turning point of the war?
It was also a moral victory over the enemy. The German beast was wounded, and began to bleed.
>>341437
No, Leningrad was the turning point of the war. The American materiel that kept the Russians alive at Leningrad tying down the Germans gave Stalin more time to regroup his forces and construct more military vehicles, that would eventually win Stalingrad,
>>341437
>and for nothing. Obviously they could've been put to better use elsewhere and have won.
Wasn't Stalingrad the gateway to the oil fields? Capturing massive oil reserves and denying your enemy oil was probably pretty important for a mechanized army.
Although I've always wondered why it was Stalingrad and not some other place to cross the Volga if that was the Wehrmacht's reasoning.
I'd say it was Moscow, Stalingrad was the first nail in the Coffin
>>341437
It was, although less to do with the battle itself and more to do with the growing Soviet industrial capabilities coming to bear as well as shrinking the quality gap between the two armies.
If the Germans pulled out before getting encircled, they would still have lost. If they had taken the city but been unable to advance further, they still would have lost. Only in some spectacular breakthrough that keeps the momentum, of taking the city and going on into the Caucasus, do the Germans still have a chance, and even then it's not great.
Stalingrad was more a demonstration that the tide had turned than an upset that turned the tide.
>>341502
Are you retarded? Leningrad was besieged with a relatively tiny force, and it was cut off; American materiel didn't get to it.
>>341532
The goal was definitely for something, but I believe with the nothing he is refering to the fact that, because they failed to achieve their goal, all of those soldiers were lost for nothing.
>Out of the nearly 91,000 German prisoners captured in Stalingrad, only about 5,000 ever returned
>>341532
>Although I've always wondered why it was Stalingrad and not some other place to cross the Volga if that was the Wehrmacht's reasoning.
Because it's by a southeastern bend of the Volga. Cross the river above it and you'll have to cross somewhere else, with enemy forces holding both up and downstream, meaning you can only use boats in a very limited fashion.
>>341544
5000 too many.
They deserved to pay.
>>341552
Nah, Russians had it comming.
>>341558
The fuck are you talking about?
They deserted to be annihilated?
>>341437
>Was Stalingrad the turning point of the war?
Yes, this has been set in stone for decades and would only be argued against by hipsters. Asking something this retarded is equivalent to asking if the evacuation at Dunkirk was relevant.
>they could've been put to better use elsewhere and have won.
No, stop being retarded.
>>341502
>Leningrad was the turning point
No.
It was an extremely important area, and the Russians holding the against (and eventually breaking) the siege was important, but by no means the turning point.
>The American materiel that kept the Russians alive at Leningrad tying down the Germans gave Stalin more time to regroup his forces
Stop being retarded. The supplies that came in from the Northern lanes (which constituted only about a fifth of the total lend-lease incoming anyway) were primarily armoured vehicles and trucks, which while beneficial, were no means the wire keeping the Soviets together.
>>341532
Capturing Stalingrad meant stopping supplies from being shipped down the Southern Front while simultaneously leaving the oil fields open.
Idiots blame Hitler for attacking Stalingrad out of the namesake, but leaving it free would've been far more risky, leaving the entire sweeping wing of the southern army open to counter attack.
>>341437
>850, 000 KIA/Captured/MIA in the Axis side
>Soviets has 478,741 KIA/MIA and 650,878 wounded or sick
The Soviets performed pretty well imo.
>>341587
> asking if the evacuation at Dunkirk was relevant.
Not OP, but in the grand scheme of things, it really wasn't. Even if the BEF gets annihilated, the Germans don't have the sealift to pull a Sealion, and the bulk of the forces fighting in North Africa and the Ethiopian campaign weren't from the UK anyway, and supply shortages meant that a lot of the avialable manpower had to sit around and do little.
10 divisions more or less isn't going to change the war.
>>341586
>Invade and annex neighboring countries
>Get angry when someone does the same to you
This is what we call hypocrisy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tannenberg_Line
>russia
>military prowess
>"deep battle doctrine"
>>341457
OP said captured people too
>>341586
Without question.
>>341618
>Germany
>muh panzers
>blitzkrieg
>>341638
>4 million + military casualties during Barbarossa
lmao
>>341598
>Pinnacle of Soviet Achievement
>Not Bagration or Spring Awakening
>>341657
>mass assaults with overwhelming force attacking an outnumbered enemy all at once in every area
>"deep battle"
theres no need to tarry on with this, we all know the exact conditions under which Russians can have a good chance to win against another great power conventionally, and its certainly not on anything close to equal footing you red shit eater
>Soviet Union
>led by a Georgian and a bunch of kikes
>armies consisting of every ethnicity from Ukrainians to far east Asians
>everyone talking about "the Russians"
>>341671
Spring awakening was a German offensive that got squished you ignorant pleb.
>>341678
> Russians can have a good chance
> have a good chance
I didn't say miracles couldn't happen anon
>>341678
also
>"Given the timing of the offensive and the relative strength of German forces, the notion of pitting weakened German units, especially some returning from the Battle of the Bulge, against larger Soviet forces caused the plan to be doomed from the start.[5]"
>>341687
And yet the Soviets were outnumbered at Lake Balaton. You know, away from the "exact conditions" that "give them a chance".
>>341690
>341690
see>>341689
they had superior equipment, superior lines of supply, superior air cover, and less generally exhausted troops. Come now anon your one, suspect example doesn't erase a massive, humiliating catalog of Russian military incompetence that both world wars and their surrounding events provide.In fact I'd say their cases of military catastrophe far outdo anything their successes can claim. Its the same story again and again with the Caroleans and Napoleon and in the world wars, just give it up. Only Russia with its vast land and population and resources can afford to fuck up like they do on they scale they do, and you know thats the case
>>341703
>they had superior equipment, superior lines of supply, superior air cover, and less generally exhausted troops. Come now anon your one, suspect example doesn't erase a massive, humiliating catalog of Russian military incompetence that both world wars and their surrounding events provide.In fact I'd say their cases of military catastrophe far outdo anything their successes can claim
And funnily enough, when they were losing, the Germans claimed all those advantages.
It's almost like, and wait for it, because this one's a shocker, people who have better equipment, logistical situations, and command of the sky tend to win! And that once those advantages swung to the Soviets, the Soviets started winning. Isn't it amazing?
Yeah, the Soviets made a lot of totally retarded moves, especially in the first two years of the war, that doesn't change that by 1944, they were outperforming the Wehrmacht on every level, from tactical through operational and into the strategic. And their "Bowl over the weakest point of enemy lines with your best troops" wasn't exactly an idea that was unique to the USSR, it's how Germany won in France and got those big encirclements going.
I have literally no idea what point you're trying to make other than the usual retarded wehraboo one, that the Soviet victories were somehow "not fair", or "done wrong", despite the fact that they used the exact same techniques that the Germans used to attain their victories.
>>341719
>Responding to stormfags seriously
>>341719
>And funnily enough, when they were losing, the Germans claimed all those advantages.
That was only because the Germans quite literally destroyed so many Russian units the means the match them were nonexistent, the Russians consistently had more tanks, airplanes and guns. Taking a cursory looks at Barbarossa shows the Russians on June 22nd had massively more tanks, planes, and guns, and the only reason they had less of these things than the Germans in a couple months was because this was the brief moment when the Germans held a numerical superiority to the Russian military simply because of the casualties inflicted. And I am arguing Russian are dumb, useless monkeys and you are a huge faggot commie for defending them
>>341734
http://www.amazon.com/Stumbling-Colossus-World-Modern-Studies/dp/0700617892
You might find this educational. But probably not.
At the outset of Barbarossa, the Germans outnumbered the Soviets in total men committed to the front by about 3:2. They got the successes they did primarily by attacking reservists mobilizing and only partially ready.
You can find this information in books like the aforementioned Stumbling Colossus, Kursk: The Greatest Battle: Eastern Front 1943 by Lloyd Clark, or History of World War II. Octopus Books, by Alan Taylor.
The Germans attacked a country that wasn't prepared, and got some advances. Do you take the Japanese advances in the first 6 months of them entering the war against the UK and the U.S. as proof positive of their innate superiority as soldiers too?
>And I am arguing Russian are dumb, useless monkeys and you are a huge faggot commie for defending them
And the Germans lost to them. They must have really sucked, huh?
>>341749
Let's face it, Germany was a back to back world war loser that somehow managed to convince the world it was good at fighting wars.
>>341437
>Was Stalingrad the turning point of the war?
Definitely.
But I would argue for an even earlier event - Moscow. The Germans had failed at their master stroke of Barbarossa, and it would always be much more difficult for them afterwards. Their gamble failed and while obviously they still possessed a sizeable force, its primary goal was not achieved and it would have to settle for a long slog instead of what they wanted. A slog they were not prepared for and which would ultimately favor the Soviets.
>>341754
What's really weird is that prior to those two wars, the Germans had a reputation of being terrible soldiers.
>>341971
> cos of the lack of experience warring over vast, hard to supply expanses
>literally fought a war in Russia when they invaded it not even 30 years prior.
>>341671
>not knowing what deep battle is
I'd advice you to read books and watch documentaries.
Ey naziboos Soviets won ww2 now stop crying and finding retard reasons
>>341544
Should have stood and fought to the death. Their casualty rate would have only been 5% worse
So I think we can all agree that the Soviet victory and partitioning of Germany was the worst possible outcome to the war in Europe, right?
>>342223
no
>>342223
Nyet, Kraut.
>>342223
Nah.
The worst possible outcome to the war in Europe would be Germany conquering Great Britain and everything west of the Urals, but most of the infrastructure, population and industry of Europe getting destroyed during the conflict.
gotta love how the Wehraboos try to claim the Soviet victory somehow isn't valid because they didn't fight "fair"
>>341437
>Was Stalingrad the turning point of the war?
Ehh depends. You could make a case for Moscow 1941 being the real turning point because that was the first major operational failure of the Germans so far in the entire war. From then on, it was just a war of attrition that the Germans couldn't afford.
Also, the Russians tend to put a lot more focus on the Kuban campaign that immediately followed Stalingrad. It's the point where the forces were on the most equal footing, and it's the first major campaign where Lend-Lease equipment made a major appearance. I've heard that the Kuban was considered the equivalent of Midway by the Soviets.
>>341437
>Was it the turning point of the war?
Obviously yes. The Battle of Moscow brought Barbarossa to a full stop, but it didn't necessarily break the German Wehrmacht, who didn't rout and still held the greater part of the Soviet's industrial and agricultural core.
Stalingrad was just a city that needed to be taken in an attempt to seize the Caucasus oil fields to keep German armor fueled after shortages became apparent in the end of 1941. So the resources and men that were diverted to securing the Stalingrad instead of pressing on to Baku's oil fields was disastrous to the operation's main goal.
But yes, being the largest battle in human history in terms of men fielded, deaths, and resources committed, it certainly was the turning point that made all the powers realize that the Axis was in fact doomed.
The Wehrmacht lost the entire 6th Army in just one battle, which is almost unheard of in military history for a nation to lose their entire military backbone in one engagement. The Wehrmacht, or almost any military for that matter, could never recover from a loss as grim as what was inflicted at Stalingrad.
>>341437
In my opinion it was the Battle of Kursk. Germany lost so many tanks and supplies it gave Russia a chance to seize initiative for the war effort
>>342693
>The worst possible outcome to the war in Europe would be a unified Europe
There are a great number of possible scenarios in which the European situation is much, much worse.
>>341594
Those 10 divisions accounted for nearly 70% of Britains army at the time so yes, it meant something. While it may not have mattered in the scheme of things for Sea Lion it definitely would have eliminated any risk of land invasion for the foreseeable future.
>>342031
I wasn't aware of that. I always assumed they would've had a decent reputation because of Prussia's successes.
>>342223
no hans
