Well, I can almost agree. Here’s how I’d put it- if the Germans had won Stalingrad, they could have gone on to win WWII.
If the Allies had lost D-day, they could have just tried again next year, or continued up from the south. Or dropped the Bomb on Berlin.
But here’s the thing- Germany under Hitler could never have won. Hitler was just too bat-shit crazy.
Yeah. Part of the reason that the Nazis were so successful in the short run is that nobody expected they would do something that was clearly so stupid in the long run.
This is why the invasion of Russia caught Stalin with his pants down. Invading Russia was a stupid move. Stalin knew it was a stupid move so he didn’t think he had to worry about Hitler attempting it. Hitler, driven by crazy notions of German supremacy did it anyway.
And dumb as a rock. Lets face it, if the world is going to be ravaged by a racist homicidal occultist megalomaniac with bad digestion and a crush on his niece, I’d prefer it if he’s an artistically-inclined corporal rather than, say, an experienced general with a degree in mechanical engineering.
I totally agree with you. The point I was trying to make was the same exact one you were. My post was in response to Scumpup’s post about the victimization of the Ukrainians. My family was victimized by Ukrainians. If it wasn’t them, it certainly would have been by someone else.
So when the Russians were raping, looting, and killing their way across Germany in the last days of the war, do your sympathies then go over to the poor German schmucks defending their homeland? I’m utterly amazed at the attempt here to place one expansionist, oppressive regime on a higher moral plane than another when both were responsible for millions of deaths!
I strongly disagree and so did the allied governments of the time.
This presumes a person or country is always bad and always wrong or always good and always right. This is not the case.
My neighbor can be a bad person in many ways but that does not give me the right to steal from him and if I steal from him I am in the wrong no matter how bad he is.
In Stalingrad it was the Germans who were the bad guys and the Russians were 100% in the right to defend thenselves and fight the Germans off. No ifs ands or buts.
I have no doubt Saddam Hussein was a bad guy but I have no doubt that America had no right to invade Iraq and there fore in that fight Saddam was in the right and America was and is in the wrong. That does not mean America is always in the wrong either.
I don’t think that anyone here is making an argument that Stalin was a good guy.
My grandma came from a town called Monestrasisk (that’s my best phonetic attempt. I don’t know the spelling.) The Jews of the town, who had lived there side by side with the gentiles for generations, were removed from their homes and rounded up into the town square by their fellow townspeople. There they stayed outdoors for three days until the cattle cars picked them up. The concentration camp, which was manned by Ukrainians, where they died is still there but it’s been converted into a regular prison. There isn’t even a plaque to memorialize that fact. The townspeople took my family’s homes and possessions as if they were their own.
When my mom was there, she met an old man who was a teen during the war. He told her that he tried to give the Jews food while they were awaiting their fate. He also told her that they turned down the food and that when he asked them why they replied, “we deserve this because we chose Barabbus.” :rolleyes: As if most of them had even heard of Barabbus.
Even more than that Stalin believed the Tzar had antagonized Germany into WWI by stacking soldiers on their border, Stalin was determined to avoid war and ignored the advice of his few generals that had survived The Purge.
Heh. That’s one of those Yes Minister style irregular verbs. I am fighting a justified war of self-defense, you are using excessive force in pursuit of an understandable grievance, he is a dangerous maniac who must be crushed for the good of humanity.
Unquestionably. Mostly it’s the bits early and late in the war where Russian policy and behaviour gets very questionable, along with the way they treated prisoners and their own citizens since, well, forever, I guess.
I read a short alt-history by Stephen Ambrose titled D-Day Fails: Atomic Alternatives in Europe.
The short answer is that Eisenhower resigns in disgrace (having personally staked everything on its success - if it failed, there was no point losing half of the Allied high command), there’s a knock to morale, but the Allies eventually try again; by that point, what else were they going to do? Of course, a hypothetical D-Day Mark II (possibly coming into the south of France following Allied operations in Italy) would have been a lot bloodier given the preparation and subterfuge gone into D-Day. The war ends months later with the possibility of the Americans using the bomb in Germany to speed up German surrender, although the Soviets do most of the work.
Most of WWII was a sideshow compared to the eastern front. If D-Day fails, the war is still won. If the Soviets had lost at Stalingrad? Perhaps still won, but the consequences would be even more dire than if D-Day failed. Reading Beevor’s Stalingrad gives a real feeling that the battle was the Soviet’s ‘do or die/last stand’ type moment.
The Allied governments were willing to take advantage of the Soviets being at war with their erstwhile buddies, the Nazis; nothing more.
Germany did defeat Russia (not the Soviet Union) in the Great War. The scenario was somewhat - maybe totally- different by the 1940’s but I am not convinced the Soviets could have won without the support from the Allies in so much as the convoys and material. Not to mention the Germans having to devote a lot of military strength against the Allied bombing. (I would mention that the Luftwaffe losses from the Battle of Britain certainly depleted their capacity).
I can’t answer your question. I think that each battle was complementary.
Well, except for the fact that their last great offensive was in the West at the Ardennes (the Bulge) – a huge diversion of tank strength from the Eastern Front.
Not sure I understand this. The Soviets had been shipping resources into Germany right up and until the invasion, as their treaty required. Admittedly partisans and war damage would have made that tougher, but there existed an infrastructure to move materials to from Russia’s productive areas to Germany. And in 1942, the year Stalingrad took place, the Luftwaffe had unchallenged control of the interior of the European continent – I think your “lacked air cover” assertion isn’t correct for that time period.
This seems exactly backwards to me. Soviet troops were masters of the spade; the Germans recognized that once the Sovs dug in it would be murder to uproot them. So “keeping territory” seems like their strength. But thye had horrible weaknesses in their transport capacity. American trucks, jeeps, and railroad iron, supplied in huge quantities, were cited by Nikita Kruschev as the factor that enabled them to march on Berlin. So I’d have said that “without US goods they’d have had a hard time marching to the Atlantic.”
That sounds odd – I’m trying to find a cite for or against this.
Sailboat
Even as a student of WWII, I’m frankly a bit surprised to see the casualty figures in the Wikipedia article. Was Stalingrad truly that disproportionately bloodier?
Also, regarding “in human history,” does that include Verdun?
Operation Bagration opened June 22, 1944. It very quickly began driving the Germans back out of Russia, but it D-Day had happened on June 6, 1944.
Sailboat
Interesting citation here. Among discussion of why we view Soviet participation in the war the way we do, he asserts that interest in Stalingrad was “almost an obsession” while it was going on, and that Operation Bagration inflicted “double the losses of Stalingrad.”
Sailboat
Can we just agree that November 1942 was a very bad month for the Wehrmacht ? :
[ul]
[li]El Alamein in Egypt,[/li][li]Torch landings in French North Africa,[/li][li]Operation Uranus in Southern Soviet Union.[/li][/ul]
That’s three major operations against them within a month. So whether Stalingrad itself was a turning point is relatively moot (and properly speaking, Stalingrad was a campaign, not only a battle).
I stand corrected Rickjay
I’ve mentioned this before but keep in mind that the Soviets considered Operation Uranus (their counteroffensive against the Germans that captured Stalingrad) to be a failure. They weren’t just trying to destroy one German army in Stalingrad. Their plan was to cut off the entire southern front and destroy ten Axis armies. That would have wiped out the main part of the German military in 1942 and the Soviets could have been in Berlin by 1943.
I disagree. The United States had made plans for fighting Germany even if both the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom fell. There were pre-war plans for mobilizing a much larger American army than existed in the actual war.
Why are you insulting Brazil, which was an active ally in the fight?
I think my post would have been a little wordy if I had written: The Soviets would have beaten them eventually without any help from the United States of America, England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, India, the British West Indies, Newfoundland, Canada, South Africa, the British African Colonies, Australia, New Zealand, the Republic of China, Nepal, Brazil, Mexico, Columbia, Peru, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Guatamala, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, Haiti, and Panama, along with the free forces of France, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Greece, Yugoslavia, the Philipines, and Ethiopia. The United States of America, England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, India, the British West Indies, Newfoundland, Canada, South Africa, the British African Colonies, Australia, New Zealand, the Republic of China, Nepal, Brazil, Mexico, Columbia, Peru, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Guatamala, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, Haiti, and Panama, along with the free forces of France, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Greece, Yugoslavia, the Philipines, and Ethiopia would have invaded France and beaten Germany without any help from the Soviets.
The situation was totally different; one could as easily say that Sweden had beaten Russia in 1790, so they stood a good chance against the USSR in 1940s. Tsarist Russia was teetering on the brink of internal revolution from the beginning of the Great War, and was overthrown by revolution during the war. Morale in the army was never very good to begin with, and the revolution sank what was left of it. Desertion and mutiny were common. Economically Tsarist Russia was also a mess and the strain of the Great War was breaking the economy apart. Industrially Tsarist Russia was the least developed of the great powers in Europe. It was unable to even provide enough rifles for all of its soldiers.
The USSR on the other hand, was in no real danger of an internal revolution. Morale might not have been great during the first year and a half or so of the war, but it was strong enough to survive enormous casualties without breaking down into desertions or mutiny if only because the commissars and the brutality of the regime kept this from being a possibility. Industrially the USSR was extremely strong. Much is made of the economic power of the USA during the war, but it’s often forgotten that the USSR produced more tanks, more artillery and more small arms than any other nation during WWII, the US included. While the lend-lease certainly did help the USSR, only a small trickle was reaching them during 1941-42, when the issue of who was going to win still seemed up in the air. The vast majority arrived from 1943-45, when it was clear that Germany was going to lose. While Germany was still on the offensive in the summer of '43 at Kursk, it was a very limited offensive aimed at no more than clearing out a salient of territory that that had previously occupied. Without material support from the West the war would have lasted longer, but the Soviets were going to be in Berlin, even if it happened in 1946 or 1947 instead of 1945.
I think every one of these things is very likely, except for the VERY small number of bombs. One per month is not out of the question and that’s more than could be endured by any nation. Actually, all they had to do was kill Hitler and inner circle and the generals would likely have caved in right away. They weren’t stupid enough to fight on against a weapon they could not defend against.
Nevertheless, looking at the war the way it really went, I think Stalingrad made the war in the east competitive. The days of Germans overrunning the Soviets were gone for good. Kursk was the battle that made the German position in the east untenable. They would be playing defense only from that point on and even that was beyond their ability. Normandy tore open a gaping wound that killed off any tiny chance the Germans had left. They were losing before Normandy and after the successful landing they had no chance of holding off the Soviets and the western allies at the same time.