I think the true turning point of the war came when Stalin decided to use his brain instead of guts to fight the war. It is the same for Germany, the war was lost for Germany when Hitler decided to use his guts and not his brain.
Only if the French were better prepared, that would teach Hitler to use his brain. So, it the French who should take the blame for Hitler's arrogance and Germany's defeat.

The first paragraph is worth a treatise And when was that?

__________________

Hitler lost his sense of reality when the French surrendered. That is why he thought he could fight a two front war against America and Russia. Stalin is truly the man of steel, he had the courage to continue the seemingly lost war. You can tell he was using his brain when he allied Russia with the west.
Put Hitler in Stalin's position, then he would use his brain. Very few people can have that many easy victories and not be arrogant. It is all fate.

I suppose it´s summer 1942 during the Blau operation when Germans were not getting anymore loads of POW´s with their pincers....

__________________

I'd say with Op. Uranus, when the Red Army took the offensive and besieged Stalingrad, and resisted the relief attempt. From then on it was all downhill for the Germans.

__________________

All the major decisions were fruits of what i said above.

The turning point is when the Germans became bogged down in late 41. This bought the Soviets the time they desperately needed to recover and reorganize. Production of essential arms and equipment was increased. T-34s and Il-2s were rolling off the production lines in far greater numbers. This increase in production coupled with the equipment provided by the Lend-Lease Program was essential to the ultimate victory by the Soviets. Stalin also reversed his policy of purging the officer corps. This policy had left Soviet leadership in shambles. Tactics were also changed from WWI-like tactics to a form of their own blitzkrieg with high mobility, air supremacy, and armor-infantry coordination.

Holy schmoley, Hessler, you make it sound almost like Adolf shouldn't even have gotten out of bed

__________________

Indeed the Russians were learning fast they bled the German army white at Stalingrad then they did something which the German high command saw, but did not except until it was too late. The Soviets slammed the back door shut at Stalingrad, Germany was now facing an army that would fight tooth and nail to free there country from the Nazi filth that polluted there land.

__________________

My Silent Hunter 3 U-Boats Skins to Download.
http://www.ww2f.com/simulations-gaming/32642-my-u-boat-skins-d-l.html
Small selction of My SH3/4 Mods
http://www.ww2f.com/simulations-gami...-sh4-mods.html

I agree on the timeline. Turning point was when the Germans could not take Moscow and the Russians successfully pushed them back during the winter offensive.

__________________

Pz, you'll have to agree the year 1942 was in the main rather critical for the Soviets...

__________________

When the soviets moved their factories out of German bomber range.

I stand corrected, it was early 42' when the Soviets pushed back the Germans. Thank you Za

__________________

FramerT, the Soviets did not quite move the factories out of range on a spurt, there was a plan being implemented for the last 10 or so years of moving industry to the Siberia and colonization of same. A number of large cities were built out of green fields or other existing ones were massively expanded. I'm thinking of Omsk, Nizhny Novgorod (Gorky), Chelyabinsk(Tankograd, what a sweet name ), etc.

What you may be thinking of was a long before thought out emergency measure, moving plant from the western parts of the country to those established sites. Of course things are not so simple as I may make them sound, the amount of machinery was immense, 10 Mil. people were relocated, and of course a movement this size will take it's measure of snags, but all in all it allowed industry to escape from destruction. Not every country can boast of having opportunities like this.

PzJgr, what do you mean by early 42? In Summer 42 the Germans were running headlong for the Southeast, and at the time it didn't quite look like they were being stopped!

__________________

Za, I am not sure if you understand my point.
If Hitler wasn't so arrogant, he wouldn't have not equiped his man for winter warfare. If he was not so arrogant, he wouldn't have named the operation "Barbarossa.

A combination of severe Russian winter, lack of winter clothing and the counteroffensive around Moscow demoralized the German troops as well as the General staff.

Yes, the Germans were the masters in the Spring and Summer but the knowledge that the Germans could be stopped gave the Russians some confidence that they could beat the Germans and the Stalingrad debacle was the first result from that confidence. Moscow was the beginning of the defensive strategy to aimed at grinding down the German units and then take the offensive once they have been weakened. Yes, at a great price but in my opinion, the turning point was at the gates of Moscow.

Then, at the timeline you are referring to, the Russians bounced back in full force with a solid support and supply system in place at which they started to gain control of the field. By this time, the Germans recognized that an overall victory of the USSR was not obtainable and the best they could do is attempt what the Russians previously did and hold on, grind down the Soviet units and hope for local victories. The Germans were so weakened that they could not do this. Resulting in a withdrawal from the USSR.

__________________

What's up with the Barbarossa name? The man died by drowning, so it was a more or less apt choice of name

The 1941 winter supply crisis was just that, a crisis. It was compounded by the very enthusiastic Soviet offensive, but which did not have much behind it other than enthusiasm, after a couple of months the Soviet '41 Winter offensive was ended in a bloodbath caused by Stalin's haste and overconfidence.

The fact is that in 1942 the Germans were able to push everything ahead of where they attacked, until a certain point where they did reach the end of their logistical and fatigue tether, while performing that complete waste that was the Stalingrad Battle, which was totally unnecessary. Thanks Adolf.

Also to be noted is that to coincide with the Stalingrad siege operation (Uranus), the Soviets tried to reduce the Rzhev Salient (Army Group Centre) in an operation commanded by the fearsome Zhukov with even greater resources than the ones for Stalingrad, but the fact is that AGC was able to throw back the offensive with immense loss. So no, the Germans were not beaten even by then.

There was a big operations lull until July 1943, when the Germans attacked at Kursk. Now here is another story. This was the first time the Red Army was able to do something it had never succeeded before: stop a full fledged offensive by a German Army totally well prepared with months of logistical preparation behind them. That was the turning point, it was then that the Soviets were able to measure up with the Germans, stop them and initiate a counter offensive that sent the Germans reeling, and which stopped not when the Germans wanted but when the previously appointed objectives were reached (See Ops. Kutuzov and Rumiantsev for the aftermath). After this the Germans would never again be able to mount a significant offensive in the East. That is your turning point!

__________________

The Russians did not do anything different at Kursk than what has been done since the battle of Moscow.

1. They prepared for the German offensive.
2. They took a beating
3. They weakened the Germans through attrition
4. They counterattacked after the Germans have been weakened

Now after Kursk, the German's bolt was shot and the Russians could then conduct offesive operations but this is the culmination of everything that happened prior to Kursk (factories moved and set up for production, moving of siberian divisions, creation and training of new divisions, etc) beginning with their defensive victory at Moscow.

The Germans have not been successfully beaten (I mean this tacticaly, not strategicly) so the Russians had much to gain from their success at Moscow.

Now, I did now say the Germans were beaten, just that the Russians realized that the Germans could be beaten. The price would be high and was. But I still, in my opinion, think that the turning point was the Germans failure to take Moscow and the retreat afterwards.

If Moscow was taken, would the Russians have been able to hold Leningrad or strike back at Stalingrad? 42' was a crucial year as you have put it and I agree. It would have swung the other way. Therefore, Moscow was the turning point where the Russians begin to have some success against the Germans be it defensive but they survived.

__________________

A crisis? You must be joking. Surely you know what time meant to the Russians at the time.
It it was a crisis, then it was the crisis that lost them the war.

Some may disagree,

This really depends on what one might consider the objective to have been. Colonel Orlov Alexander Semenovich challenges Glantz here.

Interesting read:
Operation Mars (prof. Orlov)

__________________
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

1. They prepared for the German offensive. Agreed. Belt after belt of defences that would wear down even the mightiest of tanks.

2. They took a beating. Agreed.

3. They weakened the Germans through attrition. Agreed. Germany could'nt get into an attrition battle. Germany was'nt touching the soviet factories producing T34s and such. Even during Stalingrad, tanks were rolling out.

4. They counterattacked after the Germans have been weakened. Agreed.


<If Moscow was taken, would the Russians have been able to hold Leningrad or strike back at Stalingrad? 42' was a crucial year as you have put it and I agree. It would have swung the other way. Therefore, Moscow was the turning point where the Russians begin to have some success against the Germans be it defensive but they survived.>

I still don't see how Moscow could've been taken. Look at Stalingrad. Street by street,house by house will consume an army. Moscow,being the capital,would probably have been fought for more bitterly than Stalingrad.

IMO. The turning point was before Kursk. Kursk was'nt needed and Hitler thought the new wonder tanks would make a difference.

Lets also not forget that Moscow is twice the size of Stalingrad ( now Volgograd ) at 417.4 sq mi..... compared to 218.1 of Stalingrad.

The population would also be taken into account which was about 8 times that of Stalingrad

__________________
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

Tch! I just can't convince anyone any longer. What happened to my charisma?

"It was Kursk!"

"No it wasn't!"

"It was Kursk!"

"No it wasn't!"

__________________

If the Germans didn't waste any time, there would have been no Kursk.

By the way, I just came across this Chinese proverb:"Talk does not cook rice."

Never thought this day would come, but here it is... I DISAGREE!

Im going to go with the one in between.... Stalingrad, for a couple of reasons. Germans still managed to have some success and victories after Moscow, they did not after Stalingrad, however they did manage a few offenses, after Kursk, well......it was all over.

__________________
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