Jeff,

Moscow is not the only railroad hub the Soviets had. It was important but it was one among many and its lost could be replaced by cities further east. To give quietus to Soviet resistance, the Wehrmacht must take or threaten all cities on the Leningrad-Mascow-Stalingrad-Rastov line. If the Germans have only Moscow, they would still face a Soviet industry relocated in the east and would fight the Soviet winter counterattack in Siberia.

Why was Stalingrad seen as the turning point but Moscow was not?

Because although Moscow was, in retrospect, one of the most momentus moments in WWII, this was not apparent at the time. But Stalingrad was one of those battles that, while one combatant suffered a sharp setback but not damaged beyond recovery, the belligerants nevertheless see it as a decisive, turning moment because it presaged things to come.

In Moscow, the Russians defeated a worn down force with raw strength. In Stalingrad, the Russians used superlative mobile tactics, killed a field army, and nearly succeeded in cutting off an entire Army Group. It was a triumph, and both the Germans and Russians saw that the tide of war had changed.

Initially Hitler did want the city encircled, but when it became apparent that the Red Army was going to put up a stiff fight their objective changed to the destruction of the Soviet forces within and provide security for the central frount attack on Moscow... IIRC.

Trip;
The fall of Moscow would have been a blow. Could Novgorod have filled in as the rail hub of the Soviet war effort? Google Image Result for http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Russia_Rail_Map.png Probably after a time... But the Soviet war effort would have been seriously comprimised by the capture of it's transport heart. What the political ramifications might have been are rather unknowable but I for one cannot see the Rus doing anything but soldiering grimly on. Here is a fictionalization about the possible repercussions; http://www.amazon.com/Moscow-Option-.../dp/185367463X
JeffinMNUSA

__________________

The initial goal for Germany was to capture Leningrad and the Wehrmacht did all which it could to accomplish this this task. After Von Leeb's men were stopped at the entrance; occupying nothing further than Pushkin (thanks to Zhukov's defenses and relentless counter attacks) an order by Hitler himself was given to level the city by artillery and air. Only when that failed, did the Germans try to starve Leningrad into submission.

The siege did not benefit Germany as these men were desperately needed else where. It was in the best interests of Germany to capture Leningrad which she tried but failed.

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

Why did Hitler hold the German troops back to take Leningrad? Why did Hitler turn down the military and political triumph of conquering the city of the October revolution?
Hitler did not want to capture besieged Leningrad during World War II, but intended to starve its citizens to death,
see:
The St. Petersburg Times - Top Stories - New Book: Hitler Didn?t Want to Take Leningrad

__________________
Everything is okay in the end. If it's not okay, then it's not the end

I think the battle of Moscow the most important battle because it stopped the Blitzkrieg and forced the Germans to change their plans ,It like the battle of Britain though the allies did not gain the ultimate victory but they changed the war from short war(which the Germans preferred because they were prepared for the war and had the upper hand or they thought so ) to long one(which the allies preferred ) after that the Allies were ready to win in the coming battles

__________________
Everything is okay in the end. If it's not okay, then it's not the end

Its more like the German logistics train and lack of engineering capacity stopped the Germans. They had simply advanced as far as they could and even beyond that and no longer had the capacity to continue the advance.

This is only one man's opinion. Common sense would tell anyone that it did not benefit Germany or her allies having roughly a million men stuck around a single city for 3 years when these troops and supplies were desperately needed elsewhere.

Even Glantz states, that the order to starve the city into submission came only when all else failed.

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

I agree and disagree with MastaCheef. Yes, it was a "turning point", but notice how I say "turning point" with an a before it. Kursk, Leningrad, heck even Moscow (if they got there) could be called turning points. Besides, this is leaving out eastern turning points. El Alamein, the beginning of terror bombing, the U.S. entering the war, the development of the P-47 and the P-51, pretty much anything under the sun could have been a turning point in WW2. However, some of these "turning points" are more important than others. But without a few, the war might have been lost. So I guess one of those turning points could be Stalingrad. And on the original subject, Moscow was the Germans waiting outside the gates. Stalingrad was the Russians and Germans stabbing each other through the gates, climbing over the gates to get at each other, running Tigers through the gates and using panzerfausts and 'schreks to blow the gate in half!

__________________
To the German Commander-- Nuts.

-- The American Commander

Stalingrad was a most critically important one though, because the loss of that army forever decided the fate of German offensive power.

Say if Stalingrad fell, leaving the Germans to advance like mad in that south, leaving a huge gap in Soviet lines. Who knows what would happen then but if it ever lead to Russia succeeding Western Russia to the Germans. Well that leaves the infantry for garrison but then...

Hey whats that on the Horizon? 2000 AFVs heading for the more critical western front defense and garrison

Late July 1944: Operation Overlord fails after being repulsed by 20 Panzer divisions.

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

Stalingrad is WAY important if you even try to imagine a possible turn of events, however slight.

I know my little story is a tad exaggerated but your logical mind will tell you that German dominated Europe did hang in the Balance in a certain city on the Volga. For all we know the fate of the world could have been decided in those fateful months.

__________________
-Dustin

"Zey send zer hounds! zey to vill find only death!"

I don't think the Germans would have had free range if Stalingrad had fallen. The Germans were extremely low on fuel and the farther they extended into Russia, the greater the strain on their poor logistical capabilities. During their advance on Stalingrad and the Caucus area they had to stop multiple times due to lack of fuel. There is no reason for this to be different after the fall of Stalingrad. The Caucus campaign was a miserable failure, they were able to recover no fuel from Maikop or Grozny, and the offensive would have most likely ground to a halt and been repelled no matter what the outcome at Stalingrad. So, the Stalingrad force would certainly have to secure their flank (or try to) before advancing. Furthermore, who knows what state the German Army Group B would have been in after capturing Stalingrad. As for the city itself, it bears almost no strategic importance besides its location on the Volga, which the Germans neutralized when their reached the river's banks on August 23, 1942. We also have to remember that the Wehrmacht is not facing the Red Army of 1941. By this time, and was evident during Operation Blue, the Red army had begun to develop the strategic retreat, and the balance of power was certainly starting to shift in the Soviet favor, and this becomes complete by Kursk. In my opinion capturing Stalingrad would certainly not lead to a massive German advance, the Germans simply did not have the capabilities, especially with the US now in the war, and the the city itself provides little strategic value.

With that being said, the battle of Stalingrad still represents a clear turning point, where as the Germans never won a single major battle from that point forward, aside from Manstein's actions around Karkhov from Feb-March 1943 to prevent the Southern front from collapse.

__________________


"If you want peace work for justice" -Pope Paul VI

Jon

Hm,hm,:Tigertanks at Stalingrad ??

The Germans never won a major battle after Stalingrad,but was this due to Stalingrad ? The German army was not broken :the Red Army losses in 1943 were even higher than in 1942 ;the German weekly CL in 1941 were 30OOO and in 1943 :30OOO In july 1943 they had more men on the front than in july 1942

I would say it was pretty much an inevitable point when the Germans would be turned back. It is sort of like if you throw a ball up in the air it is fastest at the point of release and then starts decelerating at a rate of 9.8m/s/s until it comes to a stop and falls. Stalingrad is the stop. Can you deny that the Germans did not win a single decisive battle after the loss at Stalingrad?These numbers mean nothing. Casualty rates are going to depend on the tactics different generals employ. The Soviets took higher causalities (or at least higher percentage of total troops that were casualties) in almost every battle, simply because that is the way they fought, that was their doctrine. Losses may have been higher in 1943 than in the earlier months of the war, but in 1941/42 they were taking high casualties and loosing, in 1943-45 they were taking high casualties and winning.

__________________


"If you want peace work for justice" -Pope Paul VI

Jon

What is a decisive battle ? Where there any decisive battles in the war between Germany and the SU ? I don't think so .If the loss of 250000 men at Stalingrad was decisive,what about the loss of 400000 men at Bagration ?No decisive ? Not important ?It took the SU amost to years after the start of the summer offensive(Orel ) to reach Berlin .
I think your point of view is that before Stalingrad the Germans were winning. I disagree:was there any moment before Stalingrad the Germans had a real chance to win the war ?From the beginning of the war,the Red Army was coming stronger .And after Citadel (not Stalingrad ) the Germans became weaker .

Sorry LJad, but this is incorrect. The largest casualties suffered by the Red Army in WW2 was in 1941. In 1943 the Red Army suffered 1 million casualties less then in 42'.

RED ARMY CASUALTIES
Total Killed, Missing, or Captured
1941- 2,993,803
1942- 2,993,536
1943- 1,977,127
1944- 1,412,335
1945- 631,633

As for the German casualties.....
September 1939-
1 September 1942 - 922,000 (Over 90 % in the East)

1 September 1942-
20 November 1943 -2,077,000 (Over 90 % in the East)

20 November 1943-
June 1944 1,500,000 est. (80 % in the East)

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

Stalingrad is considered a turning point because this was the largest loss of men which Germany had suffered to date. The men were also the very same ones who captured Paris (the best of the best). These men and equipment lost, would never be replaced and only after Stalingrad did it become apparent that Germany could lose the war...

Stalingrad also marked the end of any real help from Germany's allies as Italy, Hungry and Romania suffered devastating loses there too. The momentum from this point on (not before) had been changed in favor of the Red Army.

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

About the German casualties in the East:
1941 830000 Combat Losses (Death,wounded and missing)
1942115000
1943 1442000
1944 2000000
For 1941:27 weeks :an average of 30000 a week
For 1942:20000 weekly
For 1943:30000 weekly (luftwaffe losses are not included )
For 1944:40000 weekly
About the Russian Casualties :my figures are from Krivosheev :Total losses minus sick and frostbites
I thin k it is wrong not to count wounded ,otherwise you have as German casualties in the East for 1941 only 22OOOO men,and that's is giving a wrong picture .
Of the wounded:a lot were mutilated and discharged from the army,ex a soldier who lost 2 legs is for the army the same as a death,others recovered but were unfit for front service and others were at the date in qiestion ,ex 31 december 1941 still in hospital .
The ratio between German and Soviet losses was (rough figures )
1941 :1:5
1942 :1:6
1943 :1:4.5
1944:1:3
For 1945 there are no reliable figures for the German losses
Cheers

I see that I forgot to give information about the Soviet losses (becoming old )
Soviet Combat Losses (Death,wounded and missing )
1941 :41584O7 weekly :150823
1942 :6584764 weekly :126630
1943 :6877118 weekly :133252
1944 :5685785 weekly :109342
1945 :2638167 weekly :143156
For the incredulous :the quarter with the highest weekly losses was3th Quarter 1943 with 199280 ,more than 3th Quarter 1941 with 183117 .
I could give the Soviet losses for every quarter,but it is become late (22.33 ),you can see it on the typos and my hernia is hurting .
Cheers

Nope, not my point, and I really don't understand yours. However, the Germans were much more successful before Stalingrad, as most surprise attacks initially are, and especially against the 1941 Soviet army. Now for the third time I will ask you whether you can deny the Germans won no more major battles on any front after the loss? That represents a turning point. And yes at Kursk the Soviets had clearly turned the tables on the Germans and were from then forward a much more efficient fighting force.

__________________


"If you want peace work for justice" -Pope Paul VI

Jon

OK folks. The last several posts have had lots of numbers thrown about with no substantiation. How about giving sources for where you are getting the information. That might help the credibility of any claims.

__________________
"Faint heart never won fair maiden", so I say "Go for it!"

Lou

Hi LJad,

I believe the numbers which you have posted are total Red Army casualties. My figures were only of those killed, missing or captured (no wounded, frostbitten etc.)

However, our figures are not too far apart. Here is a link from Glantz his total Soviet Military casualties are fairly close (Soviet page12, German page 13).

http://www.strom.clemson.edu/publica...g-war41-45.pdf

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

I never denied that after Stalingrad the Germans did not win any major battle. But I am not convinced that this is due to the defeat of Stalingrad .The Germans started their summer offensive in june 1942 with as aim the capture of the oil weels;it failed in september,before the encirclment of Stalingrad .
My point is that the war in the east was essentially a war of attrition,due to the distances,the climate,the bad roads and the nature of the opposing armies(WW I like ):in such a war,there is no battle that can be decisive ;even after Stalingrad,the German army was not broken ,it inflicted the Soviets enormous losses .I have given the numbers (from Krivosheev ).
the attrition war began in september 1941,when the Germans failed to defeat the SU in a 10 weeks Blitzkrieg,and the longer it lasted,the less chance the Germans had to win .
I hope my point is now clear .
Cheers

my source for the Russian losses is Krivosheev ;you can find them at Axis History factbook :losses in the great patriotic war. You can also find them and download (if it is legal ? )at internet :
Russia and the USSR in the wars of the 20 th century -the losses of the armed forces .
For the German losses :the source is : BA -MA ,III W 805 / 5 -7
An other source (for both armies ) is Axis History Forum view topic 90908 ,where Quist is giving German and Soviet CL for peiods of 6 months .
Cheers .