Notices

View Poll Results: The Battle of Stalingrad was the turning point in the war against Nazi Germany

Voters
4. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes it was.

    1 25.00%
  • No it was not.

    2 50.00%
  • I am not really sure.

    1 25.00%
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Stalingrad:Deadliest in history.Combined casualties=2million

  1. #1 Stalingrad:Deadliest in history.Combined casualties=2million 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    180
    Many historians consider this battle to be the turning point in the war against Nazi Germany and for good reason. The mighty German 6th army was annihilated here. The battle began July 17,1942 and ended February 2,1943. It was the first defeat of a major German land force of WWII. It was the beginning of the end of the mighty German war machine that had defeated the entire French army combined with the British Expenditionary Force in 5 short weeks in the spring and early summer of 1940.
    The German Army had been unstoppable up until this battle. One of the very best war movies ever made is :" Enemy at the Gate". This movie is primarily about the SNIPER WAR that was a small but important part of the overall battle. It is based on the true life story of a Russian sniper who became a truly great Russian hero and an inspiration to all Russians at a time when morale was at perhaps it`s lowest point among the Russians in their epic struggle against the previously undefeated German Army.
    For a very good account of this deadliest of any and all battles ever fought go to: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad ]. If you are a WWII war buff you will not be bored. ...Dr.Syntax


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  

    Related Discussions:

     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    It was certainly a very important turning point, but I don't know enough history to tell if it was the turning point. Major battles on other fronts of that gigantic war might claim the same honour. The Battle of Britain, El Alamein, D-day, and Leyte Gulf come to mind.


    Leszek. Pronounced [LEH-sheck]. The wondering Slav.
    History teaches us that we don't learn from history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    180
    [quote="Leszek Luchowski"]It was certainly a very important turning point, but I don't know enough history to tell if it was the turning point. Major battles on other fronts of that gigantic war might claim the same honour. The Battle of Britain, El Alamein, D-day, and Leyte Gulf come to mind.[/quote


    REPLY: I agree that there were all important moments and events. For it`s relatively small size, the battle of Britain seems to me to be of particular importance. Had the British failed to prevent a German Invasion or tied up the German war effort for as long as they did and instead moved ahead with the invasion of Russia,the Russians may not have been able to withstand the onslaught that was in store for them the following Spring. They managed to move entire factories and their workers such as tank factories into mountain and underground complexes. To prepare for the onslaught Stalin must have known what was coming in my opinion. Why would a man like Stalin believe a man like Hitler in the phony pact they had between them. They were both utterly ruthless dictators and hated each other.
    Stalin had decimated his officer Corps of the many of his most able commanders in one his purges for one thing and those all important superior tanks and all the rest were yet to be built. He was in no position that winter to make any stand against the German Army. Had Hitler simply moved on to Russia after the French surrender and British withdrawal and attacked Russia at that time I do not think the German army could have been stopped. I know it is all pure speculation on my part. But is`nt that a lot of the fun we WAR BUFFS get into with each other ? Rehashing the absolutely incredible events of WWII for instance.
    The Russians barely hung on for 2 years and more as they built up that all important military hardware: tanks and such and trained the men and women to people thier army. I guess for the purpose of soldiery Stalin was perhaps the first ever to make use of the female population of his people. A real"women`s libber" in his own sort of way. The mind boggling irony of the fact that it was the Soviet Union that defeated Nazi Germany with significant aid from us other allies is not lost on me.
    Stalin had his own plans for World Domination prior to our dropping those atomic bombs on Japan. And in my opinion seemed to be well positioned to just roll right on after the battle of Berlin and do to us what he had done to the German army. The Russians took on fully 80% of the German army AFTER the allied landings at Normandy along with the entire German Air Force and eventually pulverized them which I guess it would be fair to say climaxed in the battle of Berlin. The Soviet Union did not require nor desire any allied interference or aid in that final event of the European War. Things were already setting up for the big confrontation that was to come, and became known as the Cold War.
    It is my belief,pure speculation on my part, that if a conventional war had been fought at that time between the Soviets against the rest of the so called Allies, the Soviets would have won. By now they had all important far superior tanks and were pumping more and more out big time along with everything else. Also, and importantly, Stalin had little regard for the welfare of his own men and women. Was very willing to sacrifice many millions of their lives to achieve his goals.
    He was an utterly ruthless man which gave him certain advantages in the pursuing his goals in warfare. He was famous amongst his own troops for his for his ruthless attitude towards themselves. There was a saying amongst Russian troops: It takes a brave man to desert the Russian Army, something like that. He had his PENAL BATTALIONS who were the first sent in to meet the Germans in many of these truly massive assaults on the German lines and the blocker battalions behind them with their machine guns ready to cut down any reluctant trooper ordered to attack what were in many instances almost certain death for those first waves of Russian assault troops. Where did he get all these troops one might ask. For one thing women were conscripted along with men and boys. Another source were the different countries he advanced through on his way to Berlin. Once the Russian army any area they were out conscripting anyone capable of carrying and firing a rifle was good enough for assault troops.
    Another tactic he used when low on rifles,was to send the some of the assault troops in without a rifle with the understanding that there were sure to be plenty of dead troops whose rifles could be retrieved by someone needing a rifle. Things like that. These tactics were effective. They worked. The Soviet army defeated these huge main force German Armies that had made short work of the combined efforts of the French and British and all the other Europeans in 1940. We Americans had a small army in 1940 and could not have helped much if we wanted to and we did not want to get involved at that time. There was even a small movement within the US to support the Nazis. This is all true, however distasteful many Americans such as myself feel about these facts surrounding the early years of WWII. WWII began officially with the invasion of Poland in the Spring of 1939. We did not officially enter the war until December of 1941. And did not get actively engaged with the German war until a good bit of time later than that. I`ll get back with some significant dates when I have the time which I have run out of for now. First American action against Germany is participation in air campaign against axis forces on July 2, 1942. First ground action is landings in North Africa November 7-8, 1942. During that same month, on Nov. 19, 1942 the RED ARMY unleashes it`s counter offense dubbed operation Uranus in the battle of Stalingrad which ends with the remnance of Axis forces surrender on Feb.2,1943. For details see : [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad ]. So what is all that supposed to mean ? It means we Americans did not even enter the ground war against the Nazis until the Russians had all but turned the tide of the war against the Nazis. After the Battle of Stalingrad it was a losing struggle for the Axis Powers, a retreat, right up to the final battle, the BATTLE OF BERLIN. And if I am not mistaken those initial American landings in North Africa were the USA fighting the French. Please, correct me if I am wrong about that or anything else here in this posting. ...Dr.Syntax
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    The Battle of Stalingrad was definitely the turning point. The Soviets definitely won the battle in Europe, though helped by other allies.

    Ironically, the German invasion of Russia happened at a time when the area was hit by the coldest winter for decades. Napoleon had previously made the same error.

    The biggest contribution of Americans in WWII was the war in the Pacific. The Soviets beat Hitler. Americans beat the Japanese, which was equally vital.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 I agree with everything you said, but... 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    180
    [quote="skeptic"]The Battle of Stalingrad was definitely the turning point. The Soviets definitely won the battle in Europe, though helped by other allies.

    Ironically, the German invasion of Russia happened at a time when the area was hit by the coldest winter for decades. Napoleon had previously made the same error.

    The biggest contribution of Americans in WWII was the war in the Pacific. The Soviets beat Hitler. Americans beat the Japanese, which was equally vital.[/quote


    REPLY: I wish to begin by stating clearly that I am NOT more knowledgeable than you about the details of this crucial period in world history. From my understanding of these events it was not the brutally cold winter that stopped the Germans. It was the wet, rainy, fall season that made it so that the Germans could not move their tanks,trucks, any motorized vehicle, because all Russian roads were dirt roads or something akin to that at the time of these battles. Yes, Hitler had not provided them with winter clothing and such, being the asshole he was. But, that the Germans anxiously awaited the the freezing of the ground so that they could move about freely with all the types of motorized vehicles they depended on: tanks, trucks, and such. That the German army literally became bogged down on/in the muddy ground they needed to traverse and that is what got them literally stuck in thier advance,resupply efforts and such.
    Anyone who has ever gotten stuck in the mud can understand how if there is nothing but mud to travel through, there is no pulling your car back onto the road. Do you see my point ? Yes, the Germans suffered terribly from lack of proper winter gear, clothing and such, BUT it was the wet, rainy fall period that stopped them in their tracks and allowed for the Russians to hold on and eventually defeat them.
    From what I have read [ I was not there to experience these events ] the German high Command was very aware of what exactly what could or was likely to occur and that Hitler was very strongly advised to concentrate the German armies efforts on taking Moscow and holding fast at least until the ground froze solidly for the the winter. Instead, Hitler chose to take the oil rich caucasus and Stalingrad. The Caucausus where quickly taken, BUT, the Russians held on at Stalingrad which left the German armies widely dispersed in such a manner as to be impossible to resupply and such.
    Also,though of some strategic value, Stalingrad was not even close to being of such value to justify the effort Hitler put in to that effort at that time. I very much appreciate your interest in this discussion. ...Dr.Syntax
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    846
    There appears to be a lot of confusion about the war on the Russian front.

    The problems with the terrain and the weather were primarily a problem of the first year (winter 1941-1942) where the German army was advancing on all three sectors, but was stopped in the north (Leningrad) and the center (Moscow) by the road conditions.

    The advance on Stalingrad was the primary focus of the German army in the following year (1942-1943). The debacle for the Germans had several factors. First, the flanks were held by Germany's allies (Rumanians and Hungarians) who broke as soon as the Russians attacked, allowing for a quick encirclement. Then Hitler refused to allow the sixth army to attempt a breakout, which would have meant abandoning Stalingrad. Also Goering promised resources to supply Paulus through the winter. He just didn't have them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by mathman
    There appears to be a lot of confusion about the war on the Russian front.

    The problems with the terrain and the weather were primarily a problem of the first year (winter 1941-1942) where the German army was advancing on all three sectors, but was stopped in the north (Leningrad) and the center (Moscow) by the road conditions.

    The advance on Stalingrad was the primary focus of the German army in the following year (1942-1943). The debacle for the Germans had several factors. First, the flanks were held by Germany's allies (Rumanians and Hungarians) who broke as soon as the Russians attacked, allowing for a quick encirclement. Then Hitler refused to allow the sixth army to attempt a breakout, which would have meant abandoning Stalingrad. Also Goering promised resources to supply Paulus through the winter. He just didn't have them.

    REPLY: I appreciate your informative response. I had hoped for a lot more responses regarding this largest of all battles ever fought and the turning pointof WWII in the European war. Thank you again, Dr.Syntax
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I think the question answers differently if we're talking about political instead of strategic. The Nazi leader(ship) was seriously narcissistic about believing in their own invincibility.

    Strategically, Stalin lost a lot of soldiers. Economically, that might have been beneficial for his long term goals of industrializing the USSR, but once you're at the point of conscripting women and children, you've got to figure your troop supply is nearing the breaking point.

    I think it's interesting that Syntax suggests Stalin might have been expecting an invasion. A lot of historians think Stalin felt seriously betrayed by it, and he gave a lot of people near him that impression. But, perhaps the one trait that most defined Stalin, above all others, would be his duplicity (followed closely by his brutality), so it's not like we can work off his emotional reactions to know what he was thinking. The things Syntax was pointing to seem like better indicators of what he was planning: moving factories, and other strategic assets.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I think the question answers differently if we're talking about political instead of strategic. The Nazi leader(ship) was seriously narcissistic about believing in their own invincibility.

    Strategically, Stalin lost a lot of soldiers. Economically, that might have been beneficial for his long term goals of industrializing the USSR, but once you're at the point of conscripting women and children, you've got to figure your troop supply is nearing the breaking point.

    I think it's interesting that Syntax suggests Stalin might have been expecting an invasion. A lot of historians think Stalin felt seriously betrayed by it, and he gave a lot of people near him that impression. But, perhaps the one trait that most defined Stalin, above all others, would be his duplicity (followed closely by his brutality), so it's not like we can work off his emotional reactions to know what he was thinking. The things Syntax was pointing to seem like better indicators of what he was planning: moving factories, and other strategic assets.

    REPLY: Hello kojax, My take on it is that Stalin and Hitler were two of a kind and never ever trusted each other. Hitler wasted crucial time fighting the battle of Britain after having defeated all the ground forces extant at that time in Europe.
    This gave Stalin enough time to relocate, create, the manufacturing capacity to defeat Nazi Germany in the ULTIMATE SHOWDOWN of all times. ...Dr.Syntax
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    9
    Brilliant. i love the way 100% people voted yes/no. Not one person on the 'forum for scientists' dared to admit 'i don't know'. I might have to be the first !

    ... but then it dawns on me that many people replied, but only 2 people voted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    France
    Posts
    17
    It was the Kursk. There's just no way to say otherwise.

    Hitler put everything he had and gambled.
    He lost.


    It could have gone both ways, luckily Georgy Zhukov had the good idea to remain colonel when Stalin went his usual apeshit and offed every general except his (totally retarded) general buddy, and thus took over when Stalin realized he wouldn't survive if he denied Zhukov the charge of leading the defence.

    Tactical mastery decided the Kursk battle (only time the Blitzkrieg was ever defeated), and even the Reich's most elite troops had to run away, leaving their tanks behind.

    So yeah, definitely more significant than Stalingrad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •