Stalingrad Misconception

Well, Stalingrad is considered by many as the turning point in the Eastern Front, however, this is simply not so.  The ability of Field Marshall Erich von Manstein[sup]1[/sup] to re-capture Kharkov in his brilliant counter offensive in March 1943 is a tesamen to the survival of German superiority in the East, albeit if Manstein completed the task with the II SS Panzerkorps [sup]2[/sup].  Additionally, on the opening day of Operation Citadel, or the Battle of Kursk, the Germans retained air superiority in the region, providing over two thousand strikes - it was only attitition and the mass amounts of Soviet aircraft that saved the Kursk pocket from German air power[sup]3[/sup]. 

Accordingly, it was the Battle of Kursk that provided the turning point in the Eastern Front.  Hitler decided to throw the tanks which Heinz Guderian and Albert Speer had worked so hard to create in order to stabalize the Eastern Front into the Kursk pocket.[sup]4[/sup]  It was Kursk where the Germans lost the stamina to continue the war on the Eastern Front, not Stalingrad.

Further evidence rises by German actions after Kursk, where they still showed marked superiority over their Russian counterparts, and would have conclusively been victorious had it not been in the lack of supplies and men, wasted at Kursk.  For example, in the Battle of Targul Frumos, May 1944, the Grossdeutshland Mechanized Infantry Division, and single battalions of a Panzer division, were able to defeat a superior force, sent by Soviet Field Marshall Ivan Koniev to break into Romania.  In a four to seven day battle the Red Army was forced to retreat, with heavy casualties.[sup]5[/sup]

Even before, during the Operation Uranus, the operation to encircle Generaloberst Paulus' 6th Army (later promoted to General-feldmarchall), Zhuvov launched the sister offensive of Operation Mars against German Army Group Center, which was repulsed at the cost of two hundred thousand lives.[sup]6[/sup]

So, in short, it was the German defeat at the Battle of Kursk, not Stalingrad, which provided the true turning point on the Eastern Front.



----------------------------

1.  For further information check out Lost Victories, his memoirs.
2.  A good history of the II SS Panzerkorps is provided by Michael Reynolds.
3.  David M. Glantz, The Battle of Kursk and Robin Cross, Citadel.
4.  Heinz Guderian, Panzer General
5.  Panzers on the Defensive, WWII History, Pat McTaggart
6.  David M. Glantz, Forgotten Battles of WWII.

Originally posted by Temujin well, the point is that before Kursk Germany was still able to suceed on the eastern point, but Stalingrad saw the destruction of a whole German army, which never has happened before in the war, that's why Stalingrad is the turning point.

Well, I guess in that sense it could be called a turning point.  But I wouldn't call it that.  Instead, Stalingrad should be named the beginning of a turning point, becase even after the destruction of the 6th Army at Stalingrad, the Soviet strategic offensive across the Eastern Front was halted, and the Germans were still able to launch their own offensive towards Kursk.  And Kursk was the first time a German summer offensive was halted in the summer.

of course, everyone has another opionon of it, same goes for the turning point on the western front, was it D-Day or the battle of the bulge? and so on...

 World War I misconception: German Victory becamse impossible slightly before the battle of Tannenberg when Smasonov destroyed the invading German Army, Victory for Russia was impossible after Tannenberg when Samsonov's army was destroyed.

I disagree, a German victory would have lenghtened the war yes, but a capture of Moscow was impossible, in the end the war would have been descided on the western front instead.

Stalingrad is not the misconception. German losses at Stalingad were staggering. They have lost 150,000 men (this inludes their allies) and had 90,000 captured. It created a hole in German army that was never plugged. At Kursk they have lost 56,000 men, 300 tanks and 200 planes. In itself it was not so bad, but combined with the Stalingrad debacle, impossible to recover from. There are maybe minor battles on eastern front where Germans may prevail momentarily, but tide was turned.



Edited by cavalry4ever

Originally posted by cavalry4ever Stalingrad is not the misconception. German losses at Stalingad were staggering. They have lost 150,000 men (this inludes their allies) and had 90,000 captured. It created a hole in German army that was never plugged. At Kursk they have lost 56,000 men, 300 tanks and 200 planes. In itself it was not so bad, but combined with the Stalingrad debacle, impossible to recover from. There are maybe minor battles on eastern front where Germans may prevail momentarily, but tide was turned.

Although the German losses at Stalingrad were huge in no way did it kill Germany.  Stalingrad allowed Manstein to reform his line in the south by keeping the attention of the Soviets on Stalingrad.  Therefore, by the time the Soviets finally crushed the German army at Stalingrad Manstein had brought up sufficient more men to recapture Kharkov and Belgorod in March 1943, a feat on its own.

The loss of life at Kursk isn't what allowed the Soviets to gain the initiative for the rest of the war.  It was the fact that up to 70% of the German armor used had been destroyed in the Kursk offensive and the Soviet Orel and Kharkov counter-offensives in July and August, respectively.  The Germans had more than enough man power to fight the war - it was the machinery that was non-existant.  Had the Germans merely followed a defensive plan for 1943 they would have absorbed the incensive Soviet ripple offensives throughout the front, and would have been able to deal with the dual front more appropriately, and by 1944 may have forced a peace with Stalin, and then Hitler could have focused on the west while Stalin invaded Machuria.

So, in Stalingrad, while the Germans lost up to 300,000 infantry, their tank losses had been recovered, and they had even gained the initiative with Manstein's re-capture of Kharkov, and the holding of the Leningrad blockade.

Originally posted by Dux There would have been a stalemate - however, its much more likely that Stalin would have signed a peace with the Germans in order to launch his Manchurian offensive and thereby guarantee him a much wanted Eastern Asian Empire.

peace between Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in 1943????  sorry but we're talkign about Hitler and Stalin ane not Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse...

but not after the failed attempts to take Moscow and Stalingrad.

I think you greatly overestimate the German war capacities and greatly underestimate Russian ressources available.