Stalingrad, Kursk, or Other?

Crazy :

Notice I pin pointed my first post to Kai and thereafter it was for him. I have given you the same material info on another thread I beleive.
Second we have to think about mechanical breakdowns not due to combat action. It is not so strange for Tiger 1's or 2's but was rather common place. Wolfgang Schneider's work accounts for them in several instances in his two volumes on the Tigers and their personell. I knew what you were getting at but thought I would throw the sites and book info towards Kai as these forums are sometimes hard to get to old archival postings as in my case. as mentioned too maybe we should come up with a decent thread covering Kursk in it's entirety ? We should check with Herr Otto when he returns to see if this is feasible and we can add as much book and docs materials as possible to get a feel for what really happened from both sides and not just what if. Thoughts ?

E , cough, gag, what a lousy inversion today......

 

Thanx Erich, these archives are quite big so all the help is welcomed. Anyway, for that Finnish gulf thing I sent a story to the What if Leningrad-sector, and cut off most of the stuff pre-1941. Hope you´ll notice it!And like it!

Yes, must agree that Kursk needs special attention. If I could just see the battle field where panzerkeil formation left all the destroyed russian tanks around...

Ok. See ya later!

 

The Germans could have easily--EASILY--defeated the Russians, but chose to throw it all away.
Many of the Russian people saw Germany as their saviour from the Communist regime. Hitler continued to see the conflict as essentially racial in character, and so, ignored this crucial political opportunity. Now, I know about Russians who did cooperate with the Germans, but, by the end of 1941, news of German treatment of Russian POWs had solidified the Russians' resolve to fight on.
Militarily, the Germans began to screw up long before Moscow. The huge pockets of surrounded Russian forces did not surrender as quickly as the French and Poles had. This tied down lots of German troops, who had "bitten off more than they could chew," as it were. If they had modified their Blitzkrieg tactics to the specific character of the Russian situation, they might have reached Moscow earlier. And, yes, after the defeat at Moscow, the Germans could not have recovered. And that's not even factoring in Hitler's leadership in the matter.

 

Knight. You are right about the lost political oportunity in the treatment of the people. In 1942, in the Caucasus area, Ewald von Kleist disobeyed Hitler's orders and treated the local population pretty well. He was helped a lot due to it.

But you are not right about the tactics of the Germans. The only way of defeating Russia was with enormous anhilation battles. And the only way possible of surrounding the enemy incredibly fast was with Blitzkrieg tactics and therefore reduce the Soviet army and not letting the Russians to scape to the inmensity of their territory. People often think that we did not learn from Napoleon experiences. We did. Halder, when designing "Barbarossa" clearly said that the Russians must have been sorrounded and anhilated and keep going. With the size of defeats like Byalostok, Minsk, Smolijensk, Kiev, etc. not even the huge Red Army could bear that amount of casualties. And the fall of Moscow meant the collapse of the Soviet government, the main communication and morale centre of the country and also it meant a larger encirclement than Kiev. With all this a German victory was perfectly plausible. After "Barbarossa" there was no way of defeating the Russians entirely, and the Blitzkrieg tactics did not work for 1942, because the Russians had learnt. Perhaps it would have been better for us to play attacks in depth as the Soviets did later. However, my opinion is that Moscow took away from us all the chances of victory, Stalingrad meant that we were going to lose the war and Kursk meant that we were going to lose the war even quicker...

 

Herr General,

The operative phrase here is "surrounded and annihilated." The Germans had counted on the Soviet troops to surrender a lot sooner than they actually did. It took them too long to reduce the huge pockets. With the infantry tied-up like this, their timetable became seriously disrupted.
Yes, they did what they had planned to--but not quick enough.

 

If we are talking about the most important post-moscow operation in the war period, I would go with Overlord. It enabled us to liberate France and take as much of Western Europe and Germany as possible to keep it from becoming Red. In the overlord discussion in the what-if forum I mentioned that the Russians could have sovietized most of Europe had Overlord failed. It was important for the future. I suppose one could make a case for Crusader as well, as it enabled the Allies to hit targets in Austria and eastern Europe and required many valuable German troops to man the front. Id probably hit Kursk 3rd. I dont think Bulge was comparatively important because it could never have succeeded, whereas Kursk COULD have been a descisive victory. Bulge gave the Western Allies a rude surprise, but thats all. Those troops and resources could have been used in defense of the Rhine, or better yet on the eastern front. It was an unneeded waste of time and effort.

 

The Western front 1944-1945 is too, too overrestimated. The bloody propaganda makes it seem like the main and only theatre of WWII. And the truth is that it was just a secondary theatre which gave a little help and breath to the main theatre where the war was entirely decided: the Eastern front. Norrmandy and the Bulge were indeed major defeats of the Wehrmacht, however, those are "kid's games" compared with Kursk, Khárkov, Stalingrad and "Bagration"...

I have always said it, I say it and will keep saying it: WWII was just and only decided in the East, in the war against the Soviet Union. Exactly as the USA defeated by itself to Japan the USSR did the 80% of the job of defeating Germany.

 

F:

How do you think the Third Reich infastructure was destroyed ? By RAF and US bombing ! Western theater of ops a secondary front, how ridiculous !!! If you think everything was decided on the Ost Front you are quite sadly mistaken........

E

 

Well. The RAF and USAAF did quite a lot. But it is not the same bombing cities than destroying 150 Army divisions like the Russians did. Eh?

 

Your statements are ridiculous..where do you think the German armed forces are having their arms made ? And who destroyed them ? Certainly not the Russians. A secondary front as you put it, it was not. It doesn't matter because this thread is pointless !

E

 

Gotcha, Erich. And I would certainly like to get a Kursk thread going- we should bump one back up... not sure why this one is "pointless" though.
And on the tanks, you are completey correct about Tigers often being out of action due to maintenance and such issues. It just strikes me as hard to believe that in only three days, 7 Tigers were put out of action due to breakdown.

Knight' I'd agree with your points on the treatment of civilians- that could certialy be considered a major factor throughout. I would certainly take issue though with the claim that germany could have "easily" beaten russia- where does that come from? How do you account for the vast differences in manpower and production, along with the huge size of Russia?

Hmmmm... Overlord... I'd say that one was very significant as far as post-war Europe goes. Good points on the possible soviet-ization of Europe. Also, with Overlord opening the second front, the germans no longer had any leverage as far as negociations or bargaining went.
I would say that the Bulge was significant for the exact reason you state, dasreich- it was a huge waste of men and machines. Those could have been used to try and defend the reich and buy some time.

I'd agree in theory with Friedrich that the war against germany was mainly decided on the russian front. But the allied bombing offensive in Europe cannot be underestimated. The destruction of german industry and infrastructure had huge impacts on ALL other theaters. The eastern theater was probably more significant in the fall of the nazis, but the russians would have had a much harder time without the help of the western allies.

[ 08 August 2002, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: CrazyD88 ]

 

Crazy :

Sorry my intent was not to pull the thread to one side, but it is nonsense to think that Germany was basically defeated by the Russians alone. We have seen this over and over again in old WW 2 books and it is rubish ! We have also had a similiar discussion already 1/2 other times on this board. A multi front war defeated Germany pure and simple, had ther been no flak defences, no industry destroyed, no Afrika, Italy, western front invasion, then what would have happened on the Ost front. The soviet pilots were complete goof-offs, even the so-called elite guards units. The Luftwaffe vets of the Ost front were more afraid of Russian flak defences than anything. As 150 divisions ground into meat, let's look at all the German defences defending the Reich in 44 and 45 on the west front. Yes, they were terminated just like on the eastern front, and most likely in quicker succession......

get a Kursk thread going please, before I lose it !

E

 

Erich, I never said that the Russians did ALL to defeat Germany, but they surely did most of the job. And my statements are that common people ignores it and thinks that the D-day made it all by itself. Certainly, the most important contribution of the Western allies was the air offensive and the diversion of German troops in a multi-frontal war. I agree with you on that. But your attutude bothers me a bit saying that my arguements are ridiculous. Read the posts again and you will see my point of view. I rather think that British and Americans contributed to defeat Germany, but we are not like the common people I mentioned and we do know that it was just a secondary theatre in comparisson with the Eastern front.

Moscow meant that we could were not able to win the war.

Stalingrad meant that we were going to lose the war.

Kursk meant that we were going to lose quicker.

Bagration meant that we were not only going to lose, but being totally smashed.

Normandy and the Bulge meant that we were going to be smashed even quicker.

The Western front made us divide forces and certainly, affected our war production quite a lot. And this is a significance help. But these actions could not have won by themselves. No way.

 

Crazy, your right about Bulge...I guess that waste did help hasten the end. Also, you clarified my intent when i mentioned overlord. Friedrich, I agree that the war was decided in the east, but overlord was important for the cold war. If the Russians got all of Europe, do you think we could have contained them? I would venture to think not. Germany, hell all of Europe as you know it today would not exist. Also, our relationship with the Soviets improved slightly because we finally made good on our second front promise. Imagine how the Russians would have felt if we let them do ALL the dirty work. Not only would they control Europe, but relations would likely have been even worse in the late 40's and 50's. Add to that, the prestige from a successful large scale amphibious invasion did wonders for morale both at home and the front. When you consider the total impact of Overlord, it was very important indeed.

 

Well, dasReich. Of course that it contributed a lot for the post-war and thank God, it was that way... But I was talking about what help to end the war, not what help to make a better pos-war world. But it is fine,OK.

 

F :

I guess my point is this concerning the Ost Front. It is not true to believe, whomever has said it to be made as true fact except the German general staff.......but !, by not having Das Reich move any closer into Moscow/and general mud and the fierce Russian winter keep German troops at bay, did the German armed forces start to lose the campaign. The 6th army being surrounded at Stalingrad was not the end for the Third Reich forces on the Ost front, if anything it meant that for the first time really that the German army could be defeated. Nothing else. I think my points are valid even if everyone else does not see this. It was not the end of the German forces on the offensive, if it were the case then we would have seen the German army in full retreat which it did not. Kursk was not an end as well and to much credit has been given to the Soviet hollow victory, we all know that.

E

 

Erich,

I don´t see myself either that Stalingrad would have been the actual turning point in the war, but anyway germans were hit hard with that. They were forced to retreat some 600 kms ( from Stalingrad ) apart from losing 350 000 men, and the southern front was close to a collapse! Thanx to LAH, Das Reich and Totenkopf the tide was turned and russians were finally beaten at Kharkov heavily.If the weather had not been warmed up and the ground turned to thaw I am sure the german forces would have gone all the way to Kursk at that point.

Kharkov was a great vctory, but if they would have done what Hitler ordered, and stayed in Kharkov,the russians would have smashed the SS troops and southern front would have been smashed as well..with no reserves.Thanx to P Hausser they retreated and counterattacked and the southern front held.

Hitler´s decision to wait for Panthers to come along was wrong as they all ( were there actually any panthers in the Zitadelle battles? ) failed with engine problems. Attack immediately in spring with the ground solid would have been the right choice. Maybe not a victory to shine like a beacon but a victory none the less. Loads of russian troops surrounded and the shortening of the front!

 

Stalingrad did not meant the loss of 350.000 men only, but the whole campaign in the South in 1942 costed 600.000 men. That is an strategic defeat, because Germany lost unreplaceable men and eqippment, beside the Red Army grew stronger. The only success the Germans had was Khárkov due to Von Manstein's skills and the good men of the Waffen SS. But Stalingrad meant definately the turning point of the war, because of the strategic and psychological defeat. We simply became weaker while the Russians became stronger. Even if we kept some initiave and wasted it at Kursk... Even with a success there, we would have achieved nothing. After Moscow, as we have agreed, and much more after 1942 the victory was totally impossible, the only way possible was a long, long war which we could not afford, so the other was was defeat. This means that Stalingrad was effectively the turning point of the war in Europe, as well as Midway in the Pacific.

 

I think it is very hard to point out a single battle that decisively altered the course of the war in the east all by itself. However, I would nominate Kursk as the turning point, perhaps in an operational sense, if you will.

After Kursk, regardless of "lost victories" or loss ratios in armour in the battle itself, the German Army reeled back as one Red Army attack after the another thudded into it for the remainder of the war. Before Kursk, the Wehrmacht often managed to gain a respite by counter-attacking, causing the Red Army to halt for reorganization and bringing up fresh formations. The Soviets had a relatively good grip on the initiative after Stalingrad, but after Kursk they had it in an iron vice.

 

I am still believing that Stalingrad was absolutely the turning point of the war. Even if Kursk would have been won, the Red Army would have counterattacked sooner or later and smash the German forces with its number and strenght. Beside, I agree that Kursk's armour losses were incredibly high (even if the ofitial numbers are false), but there was a lost of 100.000 men and many damaged divisions, when at Stalingrad nearly 200 tanks and 350.000 men were lost! 24 regular (if not elite) divisions were anihilated!