Stalingrad or North Africa?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Military History
Forum Discription: Discussions related to military history: generals, battles, campaigns, etc.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=26279
Printed Date: 10-May-2024 at 08:04
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Stalingrad or North Africa?
Posted By: Al Jassas
Subject: Stalingrad or North Africa?
Date Posted: 31-Dec-2008 at 19:58
|
Hello to you all Which was the worst defeat, Stalingrad or North Africa (El-Alamein and after)?
Most people argue that the defeat at Stalingrad was the beginning of the end for the 3rd reich and that it was the biggest disaster ever to his Nazi Germany and accelerate its defeat. This battle literally turned into a myth of its own and nearly everything that happened after it was blamed on this battle. But was it really that significant? was it really that disastorous? was it really the point of no return as many historians argue?
So what do you think?
Al-Jassas
|
Replies:
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-Dec-2008 at 20:31
|
The loss in Africa opened up the whole S of Europe to invasion. Not to mention the loss of some of Germanys best formations, a quater of a million troops. Panzer and mech. Irreplaceable. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 31-Dec-2008 at 21:36
|
The Germany's best formations always were in Russia.
And how do you define "El-Alamein and after"? The scales of the battle at El-Alamein itself are hardly comparable to Stalingrad.
El-Alamein is one thing, the final loss of German expedition forces in Tunisia is another thing.
Otherwise, you also can say Stalingrad and after...
In any case, there is no doubt that the defeat of Stalingrad was the real turning point on the road to the fall of the 3d Reich. ------------- Σαυρομάτης 
|
Posted By: Sun Tzu
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2009 at 05:31
|
I'll tell you one thing is that both could have been less disasterous had Hitler allowed Rommel to retreat he would have had 250,000 troops with experience at his disposal. If he would have allowed Paulus to break away with the help of the nearby German army the same amount of 250,00 men would live to fight another battle and possible retake Stalingrad with the other German corps.
Overall Stalingrad and North Africa were both big kicks in the neter region for Germany. After Stalingrad Germany was constantly on defense and North Africa they lost their link to the oil fields and a possible Iraqi ally. And yes the Iraqis were willing to boot the Brits out if Germany would help. Also North africa opened up a new front requiring the Germans to keep many soldiers who could have been in the East in the South. Good thread ------------- Sun Tzu All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2009 at 06:52
|
Helo to you all
In my opinion the fall of Germany began when the day the US joined the war. Even if Moscow was not captured that winter, without the US the Soviets still had a good chance of losing the war entirely.
However, back to the subject. The 6th army and the whole of army group B was already a spent skeleton force well before Stalingrad even began. They have been fighting on the front for nearly a year. In the six months before Stalingrad (which began in Sept 42) they were invloved in several massive battles that took a heavy toll on them. Stalingrad was the coup d'grace. Even if the 6th army was saved, it would still been put out of action for at least a yearor even disbanded.
On the other hand in North Africa, the Africa Korps had some of the best and most experienced troops of the Germans. All of the units were veterans of the Eastern front. They were excellently equipped, much better than the 6th army or army group B, they had an entire loftwaffe fleet of some 1100 planes and hundreds of tanks (an entire panzer army to be exact) and over 200k men. Hitler continued to send soldiers into North Africa and depleting his now scarce resources in the east even when it was obvious he will lose, after Torch. The loss of such a huge force devastated the germans more than Stalingrad because those troops were supposed to be in the east preparing for Kursk.
The loss of so many tanks and expecially so many planes proved decisive when Kursk came. It was mostly the lack of resources that defeated Germans there because they nearly won, but they didn't.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2009 at 11:06
|
Of course Stalingrad was much more important like whole Eastern fron was much more important than North Africa. What would have happened if Hitler won in North Africa? There wouldn't be Allies invasion in Southern Europe. So what, they stucked there anyway and the fights in Italy were of minor importance.
Had Hitler won Stalingrad and defeat SU he might have won the war. Germany were defetead and conquered from Eastern front not from Africa.
|
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2009 at 13:56
|
Nobody is denying how important was the eastern front to the fighting, what is been suggested here is that North Africa had a much more direct impact on the fighting in the east than Stalingrad.
This is true in my opinion because of two things, North Africa was a wasted cause since November of 42, or even before, and the Germans committed and thus lost the best formations they had in that moment (giving that the fighting in the east has already mauled all the good formations available to the Germans). They also lost much equippement that was critical for any campaigned in Russia.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2009 at 14:16
The 250,000 troops total included many ineffective and poorly motivated Italian divisions as well as Italian para military police troops from Libya. The actual number of elite German and effective / elite Italian front line divisions lost in Tunisia was pretty small. Furthermore, allied airpower and sea power was so strong that many of these soldiers would have been killed anyways in an evacuation attempt.
I agree competly. The war was going to be won or lost on the Eastern front. Side shows like North Africa were not that important.
True, the Germans could never win after the U.S. entry but they could still tie. Had the Soviet Union collapsed due to German strategic victories in 1942 or 1943, the war probably would have ended in a negotiated cease fire. This also supports the overwhelming importance of the Eastern Front and the German defeat at Stalingrad. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2009 at 14:33
|
I think a more important aspect of the Battle for Stalingrad was not the Russian victory, but rather their resistance. Following the initial engagement the battle rapidly dissolved into infantry skirmishes amongst the ruins. Forces were rapidly depleted on both sides, and it was this, rather than the eventual victory, that determined the fate of the Eastern front and the war.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2009 at 15:03
|
200,000 were Germans; only. Italians were 100,000 . The German troops in N Africa were there best troops, (10, 15 and 21 Panzer for example). ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2009 at 15:32
|
In North Africa Germans had some tough defeat, however in Stalingrad Germans lost the war.
That's the difference. After Stalingrad, all Germany knew was defeat after defeat, and they started to deffend rather than attack.
I vote Stalingrad. It was a lot more heroic war there, anyways. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2009 at 15:43
|
I think it would be hard to argue the merits of heroism for one front over another. Certainly the Germans and Russians engaged in brave and vicious fighting in Stalingrad, but can one say the heroic defence of Tobruk to be any less meritorious?
------------- |
Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2009 at 16:01
| So the only importance of Northern African front was that Germans's effort there was too big. They could have sent those troops on the East. Still in my opinion Battle of Stalingrad alone was more important than the whole African campaign. |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2009 at 17:06
|
double post |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2009 at 17:14
I think it was the victory. The tough resistance was at the squad to division level. The victory, however, showed that Soviet strategists were capable of of planning successful strategic offensives against the Germans and that Soviet officers and troops were capable of carrying out the plans to victory. The scale of the Soviet strategic plans grows more when one considers "Big Uranus" (destroying Italian Army on Don, planned encirclement of entire German Army groups) The Soviets then used then built on their planning and execution successes at Stalingrad to defeat the Germans at Kursk and then launch the Soviet armoured Blitzkrieg from Eastern Ukraine to Kiev and into Romania.
Even with the capture of elite Panzer divisions in North Africa, the strategic focus point of the war remained the Eastern Front. This gave more weight to Soviet victories there. |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2009 at 18:28
Very questionable statement. First of all, even if Germans captured Moscow that winter, which, in fact, was quite possible, Russia wouldn't lose the war. Strategically it was not defeated, while the German army was already very exhausted (one should remember that afterwards Germany was never able to carry out such a huge offensive operation as Barbarossa in 1941).
Secondly, if Germany would defeat the USSR in 1941 and reach it's strategic obejective i.e. creation of Akhangelsk-Astrahan line and control on all the Soviet natural resources (particulary Baku Oil Fields), it would be more than capable in defending against the possible US invasion in Europe. Landings in Italy and Normandy were possible only because Germany's attentions and most of the troops were always on the Eastern Front.
It's very likely that the result of the war would be in favor of Germany and Japan or at least it would be a draw if the USSR was defeated.
So do you actually mean that that was Kursk which finally defeated the Germans? And Africa just facilitated the Kursk?
Lack of the resources? May be Germans lost in Africa first of all because they didn't have enough resources which were in the East? Germans were not able to make a decisve break through the Soviet lines that's why the lost Kursk battle. In any case, your conclusions just support the point that the Eastern Front was decisive, while all the other theaters were second by importance compare to the Eastern Front. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2009 at 18:32
Complitely agree. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2009 at 19:01
|
Hello Sarmat
If the US didn't join the war and Moscow fell, you would see the Japanese in Irkutsk before the summer of 42. With Russia on two fronts no way would they have survived. The US made the Japanese totally forget about Russia and Russia at one time only had a handful of divisions covering the entire far east. Also the US provided the Russians with lots of supplies that helped them during the critical period during the rebuilding of Russian army and industrial resources.
Now how my theory here is this. The Germans lost an entire Panzer army, some 1500+ tanks, and an entire air fleet of some 1100 airplanes in addition to an Italian field army that was quite good. These soldiers had they been present where they would have and should have been, in Kursk, the Russians would have definitely lost the battle and another disaster, this time at a magnitude even greater than Kiev 41, would have broke their backs and maybe for good.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2009 at 19:18
|
The Germans lost a full Panzer Armee and a corps that was almost an army size (a quater of a million men). These were troops who had been sent from the OKH strategic reserve in France and Holland, reserves that might have made a difference either in the Stalingrad offence or the defence. The loss of N Africa meant that the Germans were committed to a two front war, meaning that they never quite had the reserves to committ to a theatre to stem the tide of a Soviet advance.
N Africa's importance to the war was huge, it ensured that the supply line from the east would not be cut off, it destroyed Germanys best formations. ------------- |
Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2009 at 22:00
|
Topic is what was more important Stalingrad or North Africa. As Sparten mentioned Germans lost in 4 years about 250 thousand people when in Stalingrad they lost similar number of soldiers in seven months. Second I think we can agree that Eastern front was more importan than North African. Third, the only reason for North African campaign importance is that Germans lost quater of million people there. So how does this make it more important than Stalingrad? We could also say that Hitler could have thrown his soldiers from Stalingrad and won in Northern Africa. But we enter here in what if discussion.
I think it was a mistake for Germany to involve so much in Africa. They should have sent those troops to Russia.
US involvment in WWII is another topic, would be quite interesting as well.
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2009 at 23:30
No way? What makes you think so?
First of all, Japanese decided to draw their attention to the South and East regardless of the outcome of the Russian campaign.
The very well could help Germans by attacking from the East when the had the best chances for it and they did nothing. So, that scenario was unrealistic.
Secondly, falling of Irkutsk wouldn't heart the USSR in anyway. It was too remote from the industrial and civil centers of the USSR as well the Russian Far East in general.
USSR was definitely able to hold them as long as it was necessary.
American supplies of course helped the Soviet Military industry to recover. But it largely recovered by itself whe Allies' supplies was not a crucial factor here.
For good? Soviet Union was much more stronger military in 1943 than in 1941, even if the battle of Kursk was lost it could only postpone the outcome of the war nothing more.
------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2009 at 23:40
There was no second front comparable to the Eastern Front for Germany before June 6, 1944.
It would be the same thing to compare the Eastern Front of WWII to African and Italian theaters in terms of importance like comparing the Western Front of WWI with Saloniki and Italian fronts.
Supplied lines to whom?
Germany's best formations were on the Eastern Front.
They actually even were sending the units specifically trained for desert warfare to fight Soviet partisans in Belorussian forests just because they were more necessary there. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2009 at 07:23
|
Hello Sarmat
I don't really agree with you on the Red army being so strong in 43, yes it was much stronger than 41 but still most of its units were ill-prepared for a mechanized war on the magnitude of WWII. A Russian defeat at Kursk would mean that Russians will not be able to make another offensive for at least 6 or 7 months plus who knows, there might be a total collapse on the front like that of 41 which will expose the industrial heartland of Russia to german bombing.
My second point is that the reason why the Japanese didn't want to attack Russia was their experience in 38 and 39. They lost big time then and were afraid to lose again. Also there was the possibility of the US initiating the war. Finally what was the objective of such an attack except some territorial gains?
the Germans understood the psyche of Stalin better than the Japanese. If the Japanese attacked and the Russians lost Vladivostok and maybe Irkutsk, Stalin will go nuts and will draw his troops, the best of his troops to battle the Japanese which will leave him exposed. Of course the loss of Irkutsk isn't that important since it was over 1400 Km from the industrial centers in Northern Kazakhstan and Novosibirsk and 1500km from their main bases but Stalin will not accept such a loss and will do what Hitler did in NA, committ the best troops (Siberians) to an unimportant cause.
I think the battle in NA helped the Russians win in Kursk in an indirect way by stripping the Germans of their best formations even though Kursk was a bad idea in the first place. It wasn't the second front that broke the Germans but it was more like the hay that broke the camel's back.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2009 at 08:20
This is complitely innaccurate. Red Army's preparation for a mechanized war in 1943 was the same as the German Army and even exceeding it in some areas. German army has superior training but it didn't exceed the Soviets in the "hardware" that's a fact.
Collapse of the front in 1943 is just an unrealistic fantazy. German strike in 1941 was much stronger and the Soviet Army in 1941 was much weaker yet it didn't result in German victory. A local success in Kursk would just postpone the war nothing more.
This is again just a baseless speculation which complitely doesn't make sense. Why would Stalin transfer forces to a remote region without stragegic importance while there was a direct threat to the real vital centers of the USSR? Vladivoskok was called Vladivostok you know not Stalinovostok.
Best German formations were on the Eastern front. And German camel's back was broken by the Soviet Army, but not by some remote small scales operations far away from the most important strategical and tactical goals of the IIId Reich.
------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2009 at 13:27
Though a complete Soviet collapse in any situation was highly unlikely, a strategic German victory at Kursk similar to the Kiev encirclement would not have been easily absorbed. This level of German victory and follow on advances could have led to stalemate and cease fire on the Eastern Front. The Western Allies would then have to make the decision to either negotiate or to move D-day from June 1944 to say September 1943. The American high command had done a planning study of a 1943 hasty D-Day / Soviet collapse scenario and concluded that D-Day would be successful but very, very costly. The Western allies, very accustumed, to relatively light casualties then may have decided to negotiate a peace. In short, a strategic German victory at Kursk (almost mathemtically impossible) could have tied the war for Germany.
Stalin would not do it in 1943 simply because he had started to accept strategic guidiance from his professional Generals in the Stavka. The speculation, however is not baseless. Prior to the Stalingrad victory, Stalin had shown he was more than willing to ignore conventional wisdom when acting on his paranoid or "military genius" fantasies. Stalin's actions in the early days of the war or before the war did not always make sense. Why would Stalin imprison or kill thousands of loyal Soviet professional officers on completely baseless, paranoia? |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2009 at 17:45
Of course a possible German victory at Kursk could lead to some temporary stalement. But there never wouldn't be a cease fire. There were actually attempts from German side to negotiate a truce when German reached Caucasus in autumn of 1942 and all were rejected by Stalin, despite very unfavorable situation of the Soviet Army at that time.
Well, I actually base my logic on Stalin paranoia as well, who was kind of paranoid about capturing by Germans the vital centers of the Soviet state, including Ukraine, Caucasus, Moscow, Stalingrad, Leningrad etc. Nobody would convince him that some very remote city behind the Eastern Siberia was more important than the formers. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2009 at 18:04
|
BTW regarding the possible "Second fronts against the USSR." I think what really would have had very hard consequences for the USSR is a possible attack of Turkey in 1942.
If Hitler was succesful to convince Turkey to join the Axis in the summer-autumn of 1942 it would most likely result in the capture of Baku oil fields by Germans. If Germany had Baku, which in fact was the main oil supplier for the Soviet Army at that time, it could seriously increase German chances to end the war favorably. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2009 at 04:08
I can accept that. The only chance of a cease fire would be a political collapse of the Soviet regime. Though unlikely, such an event was not impossible. Even in 1943, after years of brutal German occupation General Vlasov was able to raise anti Soviet divisions. Ideally, the Stavka would over throw stalin
|
Posted By: Red4tribe
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2009 at 04:12
|
Although both were quite terrible for Germany, I think Stalingrad was worse. What was it, like 1 million casualties for the Germans? The Russians lost a lot too, but they could replace their dead; Germany couldn't. Also, taking the Caucasus was the last realistic chance Hitler had of taking Russia. the loss of troops puts Stalingrad over the top, far over El Alemein. ------------- Had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining. George Washington - March 15, 1783 |
Posted By: sydney21
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2009 at 06:34
|
BBC news gives the German losses at Stalingrad at 300,000, the entire 6th Army.
By contrast axis casualties at El Alamein were 37,000, 30% of the total force.
North Africa was a big deal to the English, as it was the last British Battle. ie not as a minor partner with the USA
Perhaps if Churchill had not sent some of OConner's best troops to Greece the axis would never have been able to establish in North Africa.
The Germans were never able to make up the losses at Stalingrad.
|
Posted By: WolfHound85
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2009 at 06:56
|
Stalingrad but I thought the Germans had to pull some Panzer divisions to support Operation Barbossa. But the Germans were never interested in North Africa its just the Italians could not win or really defend so the Germans had to help.
------------- College Student |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2009 at 15:04
|
Hello to you all Actually when we consider the irrecoverable losses in terms of man power (both dead and POW), both Stalingrad and the battle for North Africa (c. Nov 42-May 43) they are quite close with Stalingrad having a bit higher toll than NA in terms of casualties. On the other hand when we consider the material loss in both campaigns there is simply no compasiron, the Germans lost much more material in NA than in Stalingrad. In fact the Germans lost almosta quarter of their total armour, an entire air fleet (1100 planes) of fighters and bombers and thousands of guns. Also unlike the Stalingrad campaign, the soldiers who were lost in NA were 1st rate fresh troops veterans of the eastern front and these were not killed as in Stalingrad, they were POW's. Most of the divisions in Stalingrad however were already skeleton formations, a shadow of their past glory, before the battle even begun.
Stalingrad's effect was more of a psychological blow since the loss of so many troops in such a small period of time was quite hard to swallow.
As for Kursk had it been a German victory, well I think the Germans had enough resources to actually rebuild their economy and forces during the stalemate resulting after the loss of Kursk. Remember, they only turned their economy into a war economy only that summer and managed in the last 2 years of the war to hastely conscript some 4 million additional troops many were from their occupied territories.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Red4tribe
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2009 at 16:33
Comparing the entire North African Campaign to one battle on the Eastern Front is a bit unfair. why don't we compare both front's casualties? The North African and the Eastern fronts? I would imagine that Eastern Front was much, much, much worse in both materials lost and men lost than North Africa. You say that the material loss bad, but remember, materials can be replaced, men can't. And as the war dragged on Germany began to produce more and more materials.
Anyway, thats just my opinion. ------------- Had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining. George Washington - March 15, 1783 |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2009 at 16:46
|
Hello red
First of all, all the battles prior to Normady were mere side shows of the ultimate battle in the eastern front. I never underestimated it and if you read my posts carefully you will find that I consider Kursk, not Stalingrad nor NA as the true turning point in the war.
My question here is simple, which had the most far reaching effect on the conduct of the war, NA or Stalingrad?
My opinion as well as others maintain that NA campaign had a much more direct effect on the Germans and thus the outcome of the fighting in Kursk and other battles than Stalingrad because of the reasons in my pervious post.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2009 at 20:00
|
North Africa was secondary and there were no elite formations there, period. the main effect of North Africa was the loss of Italy as an ally, that was a strategic nuisance as it kept additional troops tied in Italy for the remainder of the war. but the same is true for the Western Allies so no big deal. the losses in NA were unfortunate but due to Italy they had to be supported (again). considdering the efforts that were needed to remove the Axis from Africa it was a well spent effort. as Majkes already said, Stalingrad was a matter of months and a single Army was lost, the first German Army lost at all. and again no elite troops. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2009 at 20:16
|
21st, 15th and 10th Panzer were all elite troops. Most of the divisions that made up Army Group Africa at the time of capitualtion were elite troops.
Stalingrad was a campaign. As was N Africa from Nov 42 to May 43.
The losses were both heavy, but the ones in Africa (these included some of the first Tiger Battalions) were more critical. ------------- |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2009 at 20:35
none of those Divisions were elite, they were not elite just because they were armorued Divisions. in Stalingrad the 14th, 16th and 24th armoured Divisions also were destroyed. so in regards to armoured formations, the losses were equal. Stalingrad was a battle like El-Alamein and part of a bigger campaign. check your facts. btw Germans never used the word "Blitzkrieg", this was a tabloid of the Anglo-Saxon newspapers.  |
Posted By: Chookie
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2009 at 22:40
|
Comparing casualty figures is nonsensical. Both El Alamain and Stalingrad wee equally important strategically. At Stalingrad the German expansions were halted. El Alamein was where the first effective military victory over the Axis powers was achieved. However, Kursk was, in my opinion, the most decisive battle of the war. ------------- For money you did what guns could not do......... |
Posted By: Sun Tzu
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2009 at 04:08
|
Kursk was the largest tank battle right?? ------------- Sun Tzu All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu |
Posted By: Red4tribe
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2009 at 04:37
I would have to respectfully disagree. After Stalingrad, I believe that Germany had no realistic chance of conquering Russia, and Russia was the main player in the war. If Hitler could not take Russia, he could not win the war, in my opinon, whereas he did not need to succeed in North Africa to win the war.
Yep.
------------- Had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining. George Washington - March 15, 1783 |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2009 at 08:24
Yes, exactly. Stalingrad was the real turning point of the war. After Stalingrad Germans switched to strategic defence and it was before Kursk.
------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 05-Jan-2009 at 18:45
no, not necessarily, there was a thread about this some time ago. either way, i would considder the battle for Moscow as most decisive, but we can say that Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad together did their job in reversing the fortune of the Wehrmacht. however Al Jassas got some point. while i still say Stalingrad as single event was more devastating than the whoel North African campaign, Germany lost innumerable hardware there, and even more en route to it in the meditteranean. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Jan-2009 at 23:07
|
Stalingrad has to be seen in light of the whole Caucases Campaign. It was initially a good economy of force action to hold down 250,000 troops from and preventing a complete Soviet collapse in the Caucases; a distinct possibility in late 1942. IIRC initially Chuikov only had 40,000 men under his command. It later became an oppurtunity to destroy a whole German field army. And it did. It was not a fatlal bodyblow to the germans, they were able to restore affairs at Third Kharkov. And launch Kursk, they still had the strategic initaitive.
After the fall of N Africa the Germans lost the initiative in the west and never regained it.
The loss of N Africa was a body blow from which there could be no recovery. Stalingrad was still surviavble.
Incidentally I agree with Temujin that it was Moscow that was the decisive battle of the war, specifically one engagement at the Moscow-Volga canal when 7th Panzer actually managed to get across and were beaten back by 2nd Shock Army. The breakthrough could not be exploited because they were no reserves. Imaginne if the Afrika Corps divisons had been there, might have made a diff!!! Wild speculation.
------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2009 at 16:08
|
I also agree with the battleof Moscow (possibly with Leniingrad) on the Eastern front, and would pair that with the battle of Britain in the West.
If Germany was to win the war it had to win quickly. The smallest of the powers engaged, it was always bound to lose a long war ... the little guy always does.
So the important thing was to stop the initial advances - the 'blitzkriegs' as (Temujiin is I think right here) the West christened them. Britain and Moscow did that.
Stalingrad and El Alamein then merely marked the points at which the decelerating German advances finally and inevitably stopped and went into reverse.
It's a bit of a tossup which of Stalingrad and Alamein was the more significant, since an important effect on both was the impact on morale (civilian more than military) and each of them had a bigger effect on their own peoples. As a symbol, Alamein in some ways is more potent since it was much more in the nature of a traditional 'We're on the field, you're on the field, let's duke it out' kind of battle.
The only possibility for Germany to overcome the USSR (once the initial impetus was lost) would, as some said, have been an overthrow of the Soviet regime. But actually an overthrow of the Nazi regime was more likely, though neither is really realistic. And anyway the lesson of 1917 is that even with Russia taken out, Germany loses a drawn-out war in the end. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2009 at 16:51
|
What battle of Britain has to do with stopping Germany? It halted Germans air bombardement of England but it it didn't cripple Wermacht. Just compare how much Germans lost in Russia and what they lost during the Russian campaign. The answer is obvious. Overall, the impacts of the "Western" and "Eastern theaters" of the war are simply not comparable.
There simply wasn't any comparable (to the Eastern one) fronts in the West except for a brief time in 1940 and for 10 month starting from 1944.
However, I don't agree that the battle of Moscow was as crucial as Stalingrad. Regardless, of the fall of Moscow, operation Barbarossa was coming to an end. German army was too overstretched and exhausted, despite half year of constant victories, German casualties were high as well.
However, even after the setback at Moscow, German army had both the advantage and momentum and it was clearly demonstrated during the offence of 1942. Only after Stalingrad came the first time of huge German casualties and large scale retreats and it was the first time when the German army was encircled and decimated.
Stalingrad was the real turning point of war. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2009 at 18:00
|
Operation Seelöwe was the first campaign that wasn't won by Germany, that's the significance of the battle of Britian. it also was an unnecessary waste of many planes and pilots. there's simply no way Germany could not have involved in North africa though. another Italian failure and Italy would have had to quit the Axis. Germany already had to intervene on behalf of Italy against Greece and Yugoslavia, those went well. as Italy was losing ground in North Africa as well, it was nevessary to send German troops there that could change the outcome and prevent an earlier collapse of Italy than it already was. after El Alamein, an evacuation would have been the best bet perhaps, but sealanes were not save for the Axis and retreat was not favoured by Hitler in any case. back to the eastern front however. Germany without any significant defeat was unable to take both Leningrad and Moscow, which already marked the peak of German land sucesses. Operation Blue, while initially sucessful, stalled in Stalingrad and in the course of Soviet Operations Mars, Uranus and Saturn, Germany lost all gains in the Caucasus and the 6th Army in Stalingrad (Mars between Leningrad and Moscow was a failure). so far so good. nothing what happened so far on the western front or africa was so far significantly decisive to the outcome of the war. the evacuation of Tunis happened only in 1943 and was the culmination of the overall pointless North African campaign. Stalingrad was the first serious loss of many men and materiel at all and in a shorter period of time than NA until the evacuation of Tunis. it is a debatte on its own whether or not Moscow or Stalingrad was most decisive. in my opinion the failures of Germany to take Moscow and Leningrad made the operations Mars, Uranus and Saturn only possible. a loss of Moscow would have meant the end of the Soviet Union and war within days or weeks. without the failure of taking Moscow and Leningrad there would have been no Operation Blue in the first place, which only set the stage for the Stalingrad disaster. |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2009 at 18:57
But why? I actually think that it was another miscalculation of Hitler. A loss of Moscow would of course be a serious blow to the Soviet moral, but it wouldn't mean the end of the SU.
In fact the Soviet leadership was already prepared for that and all the government headquaters were moved to Kuibyshev (modern Samara) and even Lenin's mummy was transferred to Siberia.
So, the Soviet opposition would continue while the German offence was already very weakened.
I could imagine the complete collapse, if the fall of Moscow would be, for example, coupled with the succesful assination of Stalin. But fall of Moscow by itself wouldn't mean the ultimate fall of the USSR; it wasn't Poland of France.
And also historically speaking Moscow was lost to foreing invaders several times in the past; yet it didn't mean the fall of Russia.
------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2009 at 19:07
|
but Stalin descided to stay in the Soviet Union. considderign he reigned by terror, this would have been the signal fire for others to claim his place or call for a change.and the loss of the capital is always a serious blow, in 1812 for example it wasn't, therefore there was no serious result to it. in case of ww2, Moscow was also the crossroads for many railway lines and also fucntioned as supply and adminitsrative center as with every capital. the loss of both Leningrad and Moscow would have meant the complete collapse of west-uralic Russia. |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2009 at 19:56
|
I think that if Hitler was be more rationale towards Russians, Stalin's regime would definitely collapse. However, German occupational policies in the USSR were terrible, so the Soviet people simply didn't have choice but to remain with Stalin as a lesser evil, although it still remained very dubious. Moreover, Stalin at that time first time appealed to the Russian patriotism, reopened the churches and started to talk about "mother Russia" etc. which all contributed a lot to the Russian morale. Finally, there was no alternative figure in the Soviet establishment at this time which could substitute the magnitude of Stalin. So, if he could stay alive after the fall of Moscow the resistance would go on, unless Germans redically change their occupational policies.
Yes, Moscow was an important administrative center of course, but the Soviet state could continue to function without it, given also that it was able to keep the core of industrial base and natural resources intact. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2009 at 20:17
It stopped the Germans
 . For the first time, as Temujin points out.
It showed you didn't have to cripple the Wehrmacht. It was the begining of the allies taking control of the air. Control of the air gave Germany most of its initial success, just as it would be generally determinative everywhere else. We are talking about WW2 here, not the Napoleonic Wars.
It also as I pointed out, meant the war was going to go on for a long time. And if it went on for a long time, Germany was going to lose.
Stalingrad, Alamein and D-Day were when the Germans started to retreat and continued to do so pretty well to the end. However the turning points came not when the Germans started to retreat, but when their initial impetus ran out. After that they were beaten - the details were just details. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2009 at 20:53
|
The German initial impetus run out at Stalingrad. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2009 at 21:38
|
Hello to you all
Actually the effect of allied presence in the west was felt way before June 44. Since Sep 42 Hitler began transferring divisions, good divisions from the east towards NA. By El-Alamain, Germany has already lost several divisions and was on the way to losing an entire tank army plus a powerful corps size infantry (some 15 divisions). Yes those divisions were mere battalions considering Germany had over 200 divisions in the eastern front but even before Kursk began, Hitler was moving ever more troops from the east, some of them were the cream of his soldiers, to Italy and France. In June 43, only 60% of Germany's total number of divisions was allocated to the east compared with 76% the previous year. The contribution was even less in 44 when only 40% of german troops were stationed against Russia despite having 57% of the number of divisions (most were only on paper). Many Waffen-SS units were pulled from Russia before 43 ended. Saying that NA or Italy didn't affect the Germans isn't true. Plus, Russian only really began making massive victories in that period of fighting from June 44 until May when 60% of German troops were in the west.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2009 at 22:11
|
Sorry, dear Al Jassas, but the information you have given is complitely false. The majority of the German troops was always on the Eastern Front even after Allied landind in June of 1944. Germans also weren't transferring any combat divisions from the East unless there was an extreme necessity (which existed only in a very few cases) in fact they kept transferring troops from the West to the East even after the second fron was open. Usually what was sent to the West were reseve units with limited combat experience and all the best troops were kept in the East.
By April 1945 there were around 2 million Germans fighting on the Eastern Front and 1 million in the West. The highest perecentage of German ground forces which was employed in the West vs the East was 40 vs 60%.
Finally, the fighting in the East was always much more brutal and intense in the East than in the West. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2009 at 22:25
|
http://www.strom.clemson.edu/publications/sg-war41-45.pdf - http://www.strom.clemson.edu/publications/sg-war41-45.pdf
Throughout the entire period from 22 June 1941 through 6 June 1944, Germany
devoted its greatest strategic attention and the bulk of its military resources to action on its Eastern Front. During this period, Hitler maintained a force of almost 4 million German and other Axis troops in the East fighting against a Red Army force that rose in strength from under 3 million men in June 1941 to over 6 million in the summer of 1944. While over 80 percent of the Wehrmacht fought in the East during 1941 and 1942, over 60percent continued to do so in 1943 and 1944 (see Figure 2). Figure 2. Scope of Operations AXIS FORCES RED ARMY FORCES June 1941: 3,767,000 2,680,000 (in theater) 3,117,000 (German) 5,500,000 (overall) 900,000 (in the west) June 1942: 3,720,000 5,313,000 2,690,000 (German) 80 % in the East July 1943: 3,933,000 6,724,000 3,483,000 (German) 63 % in the East June 1944 3,370,000 6,425,000 2,520,000 (German) 62 % in the East Jan. 1945 2,330,000 6,532,000 2,230,000 (German) 60 % in the East April 1945 1,960,000 6,410,000 Total Mobilized 34,476,700 In January 1945 the Axis fielded over 2.3 million men, including 60 percent of the Wehrmacht’s forces and the forces of virtually all of its remaining allies, against the RedArmy, which had a field-strength of 6.5 million soldiers. In the course of the ensuing winter campaign, the Wehrmacht suffered 500,000 losses in the East against 325,000 inthe West. By April 1945, 1,960,000 German troops faced the 6.4 million Red Army troops at the gates of Berlin, in Czechoslovakia, and in numerous isolated pockets to the east, while 4 million Allied forces in western Germany faced under 1 million Wehrmachtsoldiers. In May 1945 the Soviets accepted the surrender of almost 1.5 million German soldiers, while almost 1 million more fortunate Germans soldiers surrendered to the British and Americans, including many who fled west to escape the dreaded Red Army. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 07-Jan-2009 at 01:50
But if large territories be captured Soviet Army would loose quite a lot of people resources as far as I understand. Yes, many refugees probably would join the army but the organized recruitment would be destroyed. Besides, correct me if I am wrong, but the whole country worked for the army by supplying food and loss of territories would again cause problems with food supply.
I agree with Temujin that loss of Moscow and Leningrad would seriously worsen SU positions.
------------- . |
Posted By: Red4tribe
Date Posted: 07-Jan-2009 at 02:53
|
As gcle said, if Germany was going to win, it had to win quick, and I believe, that after the defeat at Moscow any hope of taking the Soviet Union was a bit unrealistic. But Stalingrad sealed the deal. It was the turning point. After Stalingrad there could be no Germany victory, the loss of man power was too great. After Stalingrad it was only a matter of time before the Soviet Union defeated Germany. As I said before, North Africa was a crushing defeat, but it did not mean the end of the war against the US and Britain, whereas Stalingrad did, against the SU. ------------- Had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining. George Washington - March 15, 1783 |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Jan-2009 at 10:21
|
I disagree. The Germans were able to wrest back the strategic initiave after Stalingrad. The reetok Kharkov and destroyed the Soviet Offensives outside Moscow (Operation Mars) and were able to launch a major offensive at Kursk. Stalingrad was a set back, it was not the turning point.
After El-Amein and the fall of Tunis 6 months later the Germans were always on the defensive in the West. A whole Army Group was lost in Africa and later tied down in Italy. Stalingrad was recoverable, N Africa was'nt. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 07-Jan-2009 at 11:20
Then how come they didn't occupy London?
Apart from that, they were definitely stopped in front of Moscow and Leningrad.
When you stop, your impetus has run out. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 07-Jan-2009 at 11:22
That has nothing to do with the question. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 07-Jan-2009 at 14:38
You contradict yourself. You say that their impetus run out at London, then you say they stopped in front of Moscow and Leningrad.
I can only add that after Moscow and Leningrad they have repelled a large Soviet offensive and afterall were constantly driving to the East until they reached Caucasus and only after Stalingrad they stopped. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 07-Jan-2009 at 14:39
All your remarks about the great battle of England have nothing to do with the question as well. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 07-Jan-2009 at 14:56
Sorry. But your chronology is a bit wrong. Cause operation Mars had happened earlier then the battle of Stalingrad and ended by the start of December 1942.
German succes at Kharkov was a counter offensive very similar to the Russian success at Moscow in the winter of 1941 (the same as the German success in the former it didn't mean that the possession of the strategic initiative)
------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Jan-2009 at 16:01
|
Operation Mars offensive phase constinued until after December 1942. There was a large pocket of Soviet Troops left and that pocket had to be reduced and was not destroyed until Spring 43, one of the reasons for the deley of Kursk. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 07-Jan-2009 at 17:19
|
Wrong again. Encircled Soviet pockets were destroyed by the end of December 1942. Successive German counter attacks were unsuccesful and were stopped in January 1943.
As we know Stalingrad battle ended in February 1943 after any active operations in Rzhev region (operation Mars) had been done.
What was going on there in spring of 1943 was a strategic German retreat movement from Rzhev salient namely in March of 1943 (so called operation Buffel).
Operation Buffel signified the strategy of constant defence/retreat that Germans had to adopt after Stalingrad. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 07-Jan-2009 at 18:40
The title is simply "Stalingrad or North Africa?" A possible answer to "X or Y?" is "Neither".
More fully, al-Jassas asked
That question obviously opens the door to consideration of other alternatives as to 'the biggest disaster' or 'the turning point' or 'the beginning of the end' was.
None of it though asks how brutal, intense or prolonged the fighting was compared to anything else, or how many men were involved.
If, by Stalingrad, Germany had already lost the war - for whatever reason - then Stalingrad was not the turning point. And Germany had no chance of winning after December 1941.
It's questionable of course whether it ever had any hope of winning 'the' war at all. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 07-Jan-2009 at 19:12
|
I would say that Germans could very well turn the war in their favor if they could capture Caucasus and Baku oilfields in 1942, which they definitely could do if they won at Stalingrad or just avoided Stalingrad.
In any case, if you want to constue this question so narrowly it should be only about Stalingrad and N. Africa, "Battle for Britain" is out of topic. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 07-Jan-2009 at 19:45
which divisions are good and which oens not are debattable.
which ones?
again debattable. in Italy there were only the Hermann Göring Division and the 1st Airborne, that's it.
the 3rd Armoured waffen SS Division exculsively fought on the Eastern Front. and by the invasion of Hungary, all elite Waffen SS formations were back on the Eastern Front.
the Allies had only secodn rate troops in Italy and two elite divisions and a few more were enough to delay their advance. Italy was no isse. the loss of North Africa was also negligible for Germany but not for Italy which made the occupation of Italy necessary by Germany, that's it.
that's nonsense. |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 07-Jan-2009 at 19:51
Germany never gained the initiative back after Stalingrad. after the failure of taking Leningrad and Moscow Germany had already effectively lost the war and were constantly pressed back. would you say Ardennes offensive was Germany retaking initiative in the West? that would totally ridicule your next paragraph about Alamein. Kursk and Kharkov are in their importance completely overrated and unimportant.
it was only an Army Group if you include the Italians. as stated above, the loss of North Africa was meaningless to Germany. |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 07-Jan-2009 at 20:07
Complitely agree with Temujin.  ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2009 at 07:03
|
Hello Temu
Well, despite Sarten mentioned some of those units there is no problem in mentioning thm again:
From mid Nov. 42 to id Jan 43, almost one million tons of equipment and 250k men were shipped to Tunisia, most were Germans. The germans in the end had about 1100 planes (the only other time after this battle they exceeded this total was Kursk). The divisions that were with the 5th panzer through the campain were: 334th, Hermann Goering,1st Superga (elite Italian),and the 10th and 21st Panzers. 10th Panzer was brought with the Superga and Herman Goering from Russia in Nov. 42 only to be lost in NA and was one of the best divisions in the German army. I would go on but I think I proved my point here.
My second point that you debatable was the deployment of many troops to Italy and France during and after Kursk. It wasn't just Hermann Goering, it was the entire I SS panzer corps (the three infamous 1st SS, 12th SS and PanzerLehr) which were mover to Italy then France in August 43 (one of the reasons for stopping Kursk offensive by the way). The II SS panzer Corps was also moved in the same time to the west and it fought in Italy and then to France. These were just the Waffen-SS units moved there, just imagine how many Heer divisions were moved.
Most importantly, the "elite" SS units of the 6th SS panzer army by the time they joined battle in Hungary (Feb 45) after returning from the west were they have been fighting allies for a year and a half were a skeleton. The 1st SS leibstaandartre had a full complement of 18k men (this was after reformation, it lost most of its 22k men earlier in Normandy) in Dec 44 but a mere 1300 when they reached Hungary. They were reduced during the battle of the bulge to a mere battalion size force. Sepp Dietrich said about his "Panzer army" that "it is the best name for this army because it only has 6 panzers". What applies for the 1st SS applies for the rest (source: Hitler's elite: the 1st SS Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler). This also replies to the point you called nonesense.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2009 at 15:05
|
The point that Temujin has called nonsense is that you said that Russians didn't make any massive victories until after June 1944 when 60% of the German troops were in the West which is a clear nonsense and false information indeed. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2009 at 15:23
|
After Kursk there were no real reinforcements in the East, only withrawls. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2009 at 15:52
|
What exactly do you mean? Germans continued to send all their capable reserves to the East. The Eastern Front always was the first priority for them until the very end of the war.
------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2009 at 15:53
|
In Nov 2003 OKW told OKH that no more troops would be sent to the Eastren Front until a decision had been reached in the west. ------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2009 at 15:57
|
Which my point about the SS units and their complement proves. In theory there were more divisions in the east than in the west but those in the east were severly mauled and were at a brigade level or even smaller. While the Units in the west had their full complements and thus more troops were in the west than in the east. Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2009 at 16:04
|
Dear Al-Jassas,
I have given you a chart of distribution of German forces through the war given in plain numbers of soldiers. You'll be able to see there that until the end of the war there was literally more German troops in the East than in the West. The minimum percentage of the German troops in the East was 60% in 1945. It means that all the rest of the Germans were on other theaters, you also need to take into account that there were still German troops in occupied territories like Norway, Denmark, Holland etc. It will ultimately show you that there was less than 40% of German troops on the Western Front, while the minimum percentage of German military personnel that was on the Eastern front ever was 60% and all these are in absolute numbers of people not in the numbers of divisions. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2009 at 16:07
Germans were taking the Western theaters in the account, of course, but in terms of sending reinforcements including best units the Eastern Front always got a priority. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2009 at 18:28
? no not at all. the Hermann Göring was the only Elite Division to serve in Africa at all, and unlike the other armoured Divisions was withdrawn. the HG Division was also later withdrawn to fight the Soviets after Operation Bagration.
the first three Waffen SS Divisiosn were stationed in strategic reserve to refit in France, that's all. Panzer Lehr was never in Italy, the SS Armorued Divisions were just en route in Italy. the were in Northern Italy while the Allies haven't even taken Rome yet. that prooves nothign at all. Kurskw as not stopped ebcause of Italy either, thats a myth. i don't have to "imagine" how many Heer Divisions were moved because the SS Divisions fought with almost no support through Heer units. it seems your ideas are based on wishful thinkign more than anything.
why? to face the Soviet advance in Hungary the Leibstandarte Corps and the Feldherrnhalle Corps were called upon, you're playign around with divisions moved here and there but suddenly manpower and status matter. that those Waffen SS divisions were moved to France to refit and consolidate you conveniently ignore...  |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2009 at 18:30
Hermann Göring Division was moved to Poland to stop Operation Bagration and as is aid the Leibstandarte and Feldherrnhalle Armoured Corps were moved to Hungary to stop the Soviet advances there. this makes your following statement redundant:
|
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2009 at 07:13
|
Herman Goering was severly damaged in fighting and lost al of its reserves. It had to be reconstituted from other units s one can safely consider them lost in NA.
Plus every panzer division is an elite division. I gave one which was withdrawn from Russia especially to join the fight in NA and if I had the time I wil give you a full list.
Also if the Afrika Korps isn't an elite unit then what is an elite unit in your mind. They fought and achieve impressive victories in the worst place on earth to fight in, other than the arctic or Siberia. They made their name there and were in my book as well as many others elite.
As for the SS units, they saw no fight in the east since their withdrawl in Aug. 43 until the Spring awaikening of Feb 45. These were withdrawn despite having spent only 1 month fighting the Russian during Kursk. They could have been used during the Autumn counterattack by the Russians but they weren't. Same applies for many Heer divisions that were gradually withdrawn from the east to meet the western threat and pressure. The book I quoted didn't say anything about the Leibstandarte being so mauled they had to be withdrawn. It said their withdrawl was to face a possible breakthrough in Italy, a very serious thing in Autumn of 43 and to reign down on Partisans. I didn't play with the complement of the divisions either. From June 44 to Feb 45 the Leibstandarte and the 5th SS panzer army were invloved in Normandy, Caen, Paris and finally the Bulge. When the Ardennes offensive was called off, they were quickly transfered to the east without any time to refit of rebuild their numbers. When they fought the Russians they were nothing compared to their old strength.
Finally, real Soviet progress came only after Bagration. Before that the Russian victories were not strategically decisive but rather just that, localised victories on the long march towards Berlin. Bagration, which happened after D-Day, distroyed the entire army group center. Just take a map and look at the sheer size of the german collapse after it. It was Bagration that really finished the Germans in the east not Kieve nor the crossing of the Dnieper.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2009 at 10:44
|
The events of June 1944 were perhaps the most decicive in the war. In all theaters. D-Day. bagration. Rome was taken. The Japanese were pushed back in Burma and the Japanese Navy was destroyed in the Phillipines Sea. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2009 at 15:28
|
D-Day landing was only possible because all the German attention was on the Eastern Front. The Allies overwhelmed weak German defence units because all the best that the German Army had was fighting with the Red Army. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2009 at 15:44
I don't understand what you're trying to say As-Jassas. Are you suggesting that most of the Waffen SS were fighting in the West? That is false. Most of the Waffen SS divisions were fighting on the Eastern front including famous Großdeutschland, Totenkops, Wiking divisions and most of the others.
Real Soviet progres came after Bagration?  Real Russian progress came after Stalingrad which was resulted in constant German retreat. Bagration was already almost the end of the war.------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2009 at 17:07
|
Strategic success decsisive in winning the war came after Bagration. Before Bagration, the Germans were still inside Russia itself in many places. After that they had pretty much been expelled from the Soviet Union. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2009 at 17:41
|
Are you suggesting that Germans were strategically succesful before Bagration?
They had already lost strategically after Stalingrad or even after Moscow as Temujin believes.
Strategic success isn't related that much to the fact that enemy troops still are in your territory. When Berlin was captured, there still was seizable amount of German troops trapped in Kurlandia, it didn't change the outcome of the war. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2009 at 18:15
In June 44 the result of war was clear. The Allies victory was obvious, the question was only how long it will take. The decisieve moment was year 1943. D-day was only important for Western Europe. If not D-day much bigger part of Europe would become part of Communist block. But D-day didn't change result of war. SU would win anyway but it would need more time.
|
Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2009 at 18:24
I agree with Sarmat, history knows many examples when army of one country has its army in the other and still is losing a war, e.g. II Punic War.
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2009 at 19:01
|
just some small comments because i think everything has been said already: - Panzer Divisiosn are not elite just because they're Panzer Divisions. - Großdeutschland was Heer, not Waffen SS, it was one of the three elite German Panzer Divisions (the other two being Panzer-Lehr and Brandenburg) |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2009 at 20:26
|
Thank you for your correction.
My main point though is that most of the best German military units were on the Eastern Front and not in the West as As-Jassas mistakenly claims. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2009 at 06:37
|
So the Leibstandarte where half of the tank aces of the Germans were members of (Piper, Wittman and others) is not elite? What about the Das Reich or the Viking divisions? Those were not elite too? AL-Jassas |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2009 at 07:22
|
Wittman spent most of its military career on the Eastern Front. Wiking division fought on the Eastern Front, Das Reich's 75% of time spent in combat was spent on the Easter front and they finished the war on the Eastern front as well as Leibstandarte. This only proves that German elite was mostly sent to the Eastern Front that was natural. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2009 at 12:45
I do think the question itself is a bit misleading. Here's what I think:
A. In term of potential gains, a succesful campaign of the Axis in NA in July '42 would have had a greater impact on the outcome of the war. It would have closed the Mediteran for the ALLies and thretened the Middle East. On the other hand, a successfull offensive in the SU in 1942 would have had less strategic importance. The oil in the Caucasus was not, in fact, so important. NA 1 S 0
B. In term of damage after the defeat I think noone ever should compare NA with Stalingrad. People tend to focus on the loss of the 6th Army but let's not forget the impact on the Hungarian and Romanian forces. These two allies of Germany were not equipped to face the best of the soviet troops. If the Germans, I mean Hitler, would have decidede to call off te offnsive actions and step back on a beter defensive position, I doubt the Soviets would have been able to inflict the ammount of damage they did. NA 1 S 1
C. The Germans never took back the initiative after both defeats on both fronts. But NA saw also the arrival of a new beligerant and gave the US troops the opportunity to get to know the way the Germans fought. They got their noses bruised at Kaserine, after all. On the Eastern front, even if Stalingrad would not have happened, the soviets were already knowing what to do. The fact is that the Red Army wouldn't have needed Stalingrad to win. NA 2 S 1
So, all in all, I think that NA was a worse than Stalingrad.
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2009 at 18:23
|
How would the Mediterranean become closed for the Allies? Most of the fighting was in Libya and Egypt and Tunis that was not in the close proximity to Gibraltar strait. Furthermore, Africa was never a priority for Germans they pulled all their forces to Russia and Africa was kept only as a mean to keep Italy in the Axis. As Temujin pointed Africa was not vital for the German interest unlike Russia. If you say that oil in the Caucasus was not important, you actually have a misleading understanding of the whole WWII. German military machine was in a desperate need for oil and it was never enough for it. How would you expect the German military economy to function about oil? At the same time Baku was the main oil reserve of the SU at that time. If Germans won there it would place the SU in extremely difficult position and considerably improve German situation. Moreover, victory in Caucasus would significantly change the Middle Eastern situation as well. Turkey and Iran could join the Axis, the Iraqi uprising would start again and so on. No about the "weak allies" yes German allies at Stalingrad were generally weaker than German units, however if you look at NA most of the Axis troops there were actually Italian that similary were not equipped to "face the best of Anglo-American troops" so that comparison doesn't work. Finally, Soviets in fact, didn't know how to encircle and destroy German troops and how to inflict such high scale defeats on them until after Stalingrad. As Soviet military historians liked so write, "Stalingrad destoyed the myth of invincibility of the German army." ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2009 at 18:33
|
BTW 3 days mourning was announced in Germany after Stalingrad. Nothing like that followed after El-Alamein and the campaign in Tunis.
------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2009 at 19:15
|
. I see that two main cause of NA being more important than Stalingrad are: Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2009 at 17:16
[/quote]No about the "weak allies" yes German allies at Stalingrad were generally weaker than German units, however if you look at NA most of the Axis troops there were actually Italian that similary were not equipped to "face the best of Anglo-American troops" so that comparison doesn't work.[/quote] There was no Romanian army in NA. Two of them were blown to pieces at S. While Romania was not Italy, it was still an important ally of Germany by then and especially regarding East Front. The Romanian forces were, at the end of 1942, capable only to compete with soviet forces of the same category (mainly infantry, though we maybe had better mountain troops). If the soviet offensive would have been met by german forces with adequate equipment, the outcome w/could have been different. Off course, that would have meant not stucking the best troops into Stalingrad.
The fact that Hitler neglected to see how important NA was does not and never will diminish the importance of Stalingrad.
*Maybe I was a bit too short in my post so you misunderstood my point. I could elaborate more.
|
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2009 at 17:34
If oild fields ad Baku would have been so important so, even more important, would have been those of the ME.
1. You take me for Al Jassas. I never stated that. Stalingrad woud have had the same outcome if AK was present.
2. Experience on the battlefield is not a joke. US troops would have first met the Germans in Sicilliy or Italy. NA gave them an idea(at least) of what they were facing.
|
Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2009 at 18:43
1. Middle East oil fields wouldn't be as important as Baku because those oil fields were out of reach for SU. I still can't understand strategical importance of NA. So what that Medditerrean sea would be hold by Germany and Italy? The war was to be win or lose in Europe.
2. I was talking generally about people who say that NA was more important than Stalingrad. Sorry if it is not Your opinion.
Meeting Germans on the battlefield wasn't that important to balance Stalingrad with NA. That's a bit strange argument. British could tell Americans how Germans fight. Most D-day troops probably never seen Germans before and it wasn't big problem.
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2009 at 19:33
that's the wrong premise Cezar. Hitler only wanted to conquer Siberia with it's ressources and colonize Ukraine, so we cannot say North Africa was of greater strategic importance because the Eastern Front was the main theatre right from the beginning. besides a total control of the meditteranean was only possible by taking Gibraltar and Malta, both of which operations were cancelled because Spain and Italy respectively declined. as i noted before, North Africa was only relevant to Italy. furthermore ven after takign Egypt, the Axis would still be facign the allies in the Sudan and the Near East. also the USA only entered the war after Pearl Harbour and the declaration of war by Germany to attack their ships in the Atlantic, it had nothign to do with North Africa at all. the evacuation of Tunsi only happened after US participation anyways. |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2009 at 19:35
they were Waffen SS, not Heer formations. besides due to Himmlers appeal, the Waffen SS got the latest equippment before everyone else, that's were most of their "eliteness" comes from. |