Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Stalingrad vs Kursk. Which was larger?

Discussion in 'Eastern Europe' started by DangerousBob, Feb 5, 2014.

  1. arca

    arca Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    133
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    Croatia
    LJAd, don't you always claim that Germans never had a chance in the east from the beging? So according to you book abut war in the east should be like, 'The war started' and then just a few more footnotes about some trivial moments like Moscow,Stalingrad,Kursk etc. ...the end ;)
     
  2. arca

    arca Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    133
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    Croatia
    It reads Stalingrad
     

    Attached Files:

  3. dude_really

    dude_really Doesn't Play Well With Others

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2014
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    3
    Stalingrad and Kursk : 2 different things. Not comparable. point.


    I like the Sun Tzu quotes...but
    If the ST quote is to celebrate the soviets of 1943...then why didn't it work for the germans in 1941 ?
    1? check
    2? Check.
    3 ? check
    4 ? check!
    5 ? CHECK (sovereign being Hitler himself...which brought conflicts lateron in 1943..but not in 1941).

    So ? According to good old Sun , Hitler should have won in 1941 ?






    Quoting ST is like using statistics; you only tell what is convenient, but leave out what is inconvenient.
    Or like sports/football; after the game, the winning coach can tell all the clever things and we all hail him as the so clever coach.
    But how much was planning, and how much was luck ?
     
  4. arca

    arca Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    133
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    Croatia
    As you noticed these rules aren't universal and certanly lack some aspects about logistics, strength of the opponent, his ability to create new armies, his determination etc..Some of the things mentioned being the paramount reasons of Barbarosa's failure. Even if we stick to these five rules, number one isn't fulfilled. Wermacht definitively shouldn't have reached for Moscow in October. It was moment for them not to fight, with fatigue of man and materiel, logistic difficulties and approaching winter on their hands. Fortunately all of these reports from lower levels were discarded in 'ziegeuforia' prevailing in higher command, so cream of the Wermacht was thrown in for one last catch..
     
  5. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,230
    Location:
    Michigan
    But losses aren't the only thing of importance particuarly personel losses. Time (duration) strategic position etc can be as or more important.
    Even if your points were correct they don't necessarily support your conclusion.

    And what the Germans were doing had considerable impact on what the Soviets were doing. German offensives in 43 presented the Soviets with both opertunities and dangers and they clearly responeded to them. So yes they were important, even using your own logic.

    Again your conclusions are very questionable. The Ardennes campaing had quite a few important effects on many levels.
    Possibly or possibly not. Not sure how relevant it is though.


    But determinng what is essential is dependent on exactly what an author is trying to do is it not? For a general over view of the war details of even major battles may not be essential but for a detailed analysis of a campaign they certainly are.


    As usuall, highly flawed analysis leading to fallacious conclusions. If we took your said book could contain only the following: "The Germans attacked the USSR and lost." In any case Stalingrad and Citadelle both had stragic importance in any real sense of the word.
     

Share This Page