Stalingrad: WW2's greatest battle

I am doing this project that Stalingrad had the greatest influence on the final outcome of the war. My main reason being that it allowed for the opening of a second front, because Churchill would not invade France until Russia achieved victory and if there was no invasion the war wouold have dragged on longer and allies possibly may have been defeated. So please state you opinion!

 

I also did a project on Dr. Werhner Von braun the scientist who made the V-2 rocket and worked for NASA later.

 

I am doing this project that Stalingrad had the greatest influence on the final outcome of the war. My main reason being that it allowed for the opening of a second front, because Churchill would not invade France until Russia achieved victory and if there was no invasion the war wouold have dragged on longer and allies possibly may have been defeated. So please state you opinion!
__________________

 

Well, Schocky, Stalingrad was indeed very important as it was one of the first really confidence shaking setbacks the Germans suffered. The other one was the Soviet '41 Winter offensive (this is stating things a bit lightly, I don't really think these points are worth a lot of discussion).

Striclty speaking, there is no great connection with Stalingrad to Churchill's decisions, Overlord was to be 1.5 years away.

IMHO what really clinched decision was the Kursk defensive battle and the Soviet offensives subsequent to this. Now that was something else, for if Stalingrad was indeed the great victory that it was, during the subsequent offensives the Soviets got a bleeding nose or two.

Combine this with a successful Tunisian campaign and you have a happy Chuchill.

 

Za is correct.....


Oh and im also not sure what the connection between Stalingrad and Overloard is?

 

Well I have read a book that states that Churchill would not proceed with an invasion of France until a Russian victory at Stalingrad. Stalin said he couldn't win at stalingrad until the rest of the allies invaded france forcing hitler to divert his troops.

 

What is this book? Stalingrad: late '42-early '43. Churchill nor the Americans were anywhere close to invading France at this time frame.

 

There is no possible connection between Stalingrad (ending in early Feb.43 with the German surrender) and the invasion of Normandy (June 44). A lot of things went on in between.

Even the Kursk battle ended in July 43. In the Normandy invasion timeframe we have the great Summer 44 offensive, including what was called "Destruction of Army Group Centre" (Op. Bagration pron. Bah-grah-tzion).

I hate to say this, but that sounds like rubbish. And the book was?


Guys, please be gentle with the man, we were all like this, more or less.

 

I think i may have misunderstood the information I will quote what the book says. The name is The Battle of Stalingrad by Bob Caroll. "As soon as Russia was in the war, Stalin began lobbying for a "second front", that is an invasion of Europe by Great Britian and the united states. Only then he insisted ,would hitler be forced to draw sufficient armies from the eastern front to enable the russians to beat germany.........(later in the paragraph)....It was a tragic catch-22: stalin maintained a second front was needed for a russian victory but churchill insisted no second front was possible without a russian victory".

Just because this information is in a stlingrad book doesn't mean its about stalingrad in particular, but I can still try to prove that in my paper

 

All right, it makes it clearer then. Indeed the Stalingrad victory was very well received in the West, and the Brit government did order a sword of honour to be delivered to Stalin.

The SWORD OF STALINGRAD

I understand that at the ceremony Voroshilov was a bit tipsy and dropped the sword!

Anyway, the Stalingrad victory was very important to the West in proving indeed that the Soviets could provide victories, that factor did exist, but it was not of immediate importance because quite frankly the West (much less UK) could do nothing about it! There was nothing they, especially the British Army could do "in return", no possibility at all of opening a 2nd Front.

At the time in Africa for instance the Brits were entering Tunisia by the time Stalingrad surrendered, so there was still a long way to go. The invasion of Italy was a terrible disappointment for the Soviets, nothing to be gained strategically there, totally immaterial in terms of relief, starting only in Sicily.

So by the time the Allies DID provide a worthy second front (June 44, Op, Overlord), the Red Army had an immense string of victories already.

But anyway, that sword was a nice gesture, thank you.

So, now, how do you want to reframe your paper? What school is that by the way? And mark you, we are not going to write the paper for you, maybe provide a few tips, but the next round is yours!

 

yes It appears I misunderstood what the bookw as saying the rest of the information is confusing.

 

Now that we knocked your head a bit or two, if we can help you with your project...

 

For my the greatest battle is operation bagration.

 

Greatest battle in terms of the overall effect on the oucome of the war.

 

Yeah, I'd agree.

 

I tend to think Bagration was even a foregone conclusion, I mean look at the aircraft deployments by then. A few hundred Luftwaffe types like the Fw-190A, Me-109G and Ju-88 against thousands of Soviet Yak-9's, La-5's, IL-2's and Pe-2's. The Soviets were also playing around with all their new found industrial might too, with a multitude of specialised variants from long range escort Yaks to specialised anti-tank Yaks with 37-45mm main weapons. The La-5F was at least as good as the Focke Wulf in all respects. And recruitment of liberated forces increasingly resulted in Slovakian Lavochkin squadrons, Polish Yaks and so on.

I think the last time the Eastern Front was within reasonable doubt was immediately prior to Kursk, when Manstein submitted his proposal for a brilliant counterattack at the Donets, but required a retreat to draw in the enemy. Hitler would not release his SS heavy Panzer divisions however, claiming too much valuable (yet unserviceable) equipment would fall into Soviet hands (a ridiculous thing to say at this point).

The Army was committed to Kursk by Hitler but morale was so low he was forced to make promises to individual field commanders (published in a release given by Hitler outlining the operation), that they were to be equipped with the same equipment as the Waffen-SS instead of the same old Panzer IV and StuG (he knew the Panzer IV line was actually being switched to a new StuG, the Jagdpanzer anyway, so all the surplus would be modified as a new variant, whilst Panthers gradually replaced the Pz.IV...plus some new armoured car and tractor types were replacing older ones). The Wehrmacht would begin to look something like the shiny new SS instead of running around with horses and digigng trenches like somebody turned the clock back about thirty years.

In this sense, and its overall impact along the entire Front, I would have to say Kursk was the definitive battle. It should've been avoided like the plague, and Manstein's idea run with. That could've secured the initiative that had been won so determinedly at Kharkov, by I might add the willingness of the Waffen-SS field commanders to disobey Hitler's direct instructions. Instead they deferred to Manstein who won them the battle, and then Hitler decorated them as national heroes. I dare say had they been Wehrmacht officers a permanent stay at Dachau would have been a more likely conclusion.

 

Can you substantiate this? Your idea on reequipment is ok, but can I ask on what fuel ?

Probably, but remeber that Op. Kutuzov and Rumiantsev were launched basically with what was available to the Fronts that had withstood the Zitadelle offensive, that is, the Fronts were rather damaged. Now imagine what it would have been with Manstein "fooling around" elesewhere and with the Kursk Fronts intact.

I'd never had thought of this, great

 

Many say this was a reason for Dieppe...Canadian troops afterwards capture got wind or heard the Germans knew 10 days in advance, many criticized planners knowing full well churchill tanks would not have the ability to move on the rocky beachhead...and was sent more as an appeasement for Stalins demands of a second front, and to have a legitimate response as to the failure rather then a non-effort being taken or tried.

 

He did and tried at Dieppe knowing it's failure would appease Stalin and his demand for a second front

bf109 Emil

 

It's nice to see consensus in this thread, gave me confidence as I wrote my 10th grade research paper (worth 15% of my overall grade) on the same thing. Ended up getting a 88% on it.