Was Stalingrad the the beginning of the end?

How with all the brilliant generals Germany had did they not realise Barbarossa was a stupid idea with an exteamly small chance(if any at all) of succeeding?

on which part? the viability to win the war? stalingrad?

if your looking for the eastern front, The Forgotten Soldier and Inside the 3rd Reich are two that left a lasting impression on me.

Many people thought that soviets will atack Germany sooner or later

Because they had sharply limited information about the state of the USSR's economy and military beyond the tactical debacle in Finland. They thought it would be a lot like WW1, they maul the Russkies some, and then the Soviets collapse internally, and they can take what they want.

I used to think it was.

Then I realised as soon as Hitler invaded Poland it was pretty much over..

There is no way they could have won in the second world war and I'd like someone to tell me otherwise. I don't normally reflect on things in absolutes but this seems so impossible.

Not being able to force Russia into Surrender by the end of Barbarossa was when things started to look bad for Germany.

Yeah I heard this, though I'd imagine the Germans with a full strength army would defeat them in a defensive war
Makes sense, thanks

I like Glantz's classification:

Moscow meant that the Germans would not the win war on their terms.

Stalingrad (paired with the WAllies making landfall in Europe) meant that the Germans would lose the war.

Kursk meant that the Germans would lose the war totally.

June 22nd 1941 was

It was militarily impossible for Germany to win given the objectives hitler insisted on

They could never accomplish their objectives for a Thousand Year Reich (best case scenario, the Americans get annoyed and start throwing nukes at them), but destroying the USSR was always a distinct possibility. Germany was in every way a much more powerful country than the USSR on its own. There's a reason that the world was so utterly shocked when the USSR managed to hold their own against the Germans for two whole years before the WAllied contributions became significant.

There are several factors as others have pointed out.

Russia has always had a reputation for being backwards and behind the west. This wasn't helped by the composition of the officer corps. The Junkers are infamous for being highly conservative, their attitudes and world view wouldn't have been far behind.

1. The USSR just lost to Finland, people didn't take them seriously
2. Most Generals DID think it was a bad idea
3. Russia performed miserably in ww1
4. Hitler assumed the USSR would collapse after the Invasion
5. Hitler didn't anticipate engines freezing a few km outside Moscow.

>make peace in the west in 1940
>give back everything ecept for alsac-lorraine
>france is a broken nation anyway
>now the reich would be able to import the resources it needs

>gear up a few years
>wage a more sensible war against the SU and deny them lend and lease

>gear up a few years
>wage a more sensible war against the SU and deny them lend and lease

Key mistake here.

The Soviet Union was growing more powerful by the day, as the wounds of the great Purge began to heal.

Beevor explains it quite well, half the reason the Germans took so much land in just a few weeks in Barbarossa was that there was an inefficient and broken chain of Soviet command, since half the officers were fucking dead.

If you attack any later than 41, you're even more screwed.

Nah. If the germans have a free flow of ressources after the fall of france and the opportunity to implement all the stuff they learned in peace time there is a good chance the soviets are screwed.

>the opportunity to implement all the stuff they learned in peace time
Such as?

The only thing I'd disagree with is the notion that the purges would start healing in absence of the existential threat the losing the war that badly posed. I have the feeling that if for whatever reason, the Germans say attack in '42 instead of '41, you'd still see a largely ineffective Red Army officer corps.

Nope, this is a little too pessimistic.

Here's what I'd do.

>Do everything the same up to the fall of France
>Invade Greece myself, fuck Italy
>take over Crete
>Use this as a port for a series of bombings against the Suez Canal
>Focus a large part of the luftwaffe on making the Canal in operable, support Vichy France in Syria.
>Wait until Suez Canal is incredibly damaged, this cuts off india and asia
>Cooperate with Japan to take British Asian territories like Singapore and Hong kong
>Offer Britain the following terms:

>Britain can maintain all territories
>Germany shall offer support for damage caused by Blitz
>France is restored to its former government. Various regions of Alsace-Lorraine are given a referendum on which country to join
>Danzig, Posnan and eastern silesia rejoin Germany, as well as North Jutland

That way, Britain keeps its pride and france isn't ruined.

Then, build a series of Maginot style defences across the soviet German border, paid for by Allied reparations.

WW2 won, I guess.

>Such as?

>What did the germans learn after their victories in Poland, France and Benelux ?

Gee i don't know with free flowing ressources they would motorize a greater paart of their infantry to enable their mobile warfare even further?

Probably tweak their logistics to keep up with their deep panzer thrusts better (more motorization you know)

>>What did the germans learn after their victories in Poland, France and Benelux ?

Shit all, in fact it just made Hitler more over confident.

A lucky encirclement through the ardennes doesn't make you skilled.

>Gee i don't know with free flowing ressources they would motorize a greater paart of their infantry to enable their mobile warfare even further?

No. Germany's main problem in resources was literally that they couldn't trade with the Soviet union. they were their most important trading partner, 0 question.

Half the reason germany invaded was because Stalin could hold those resources to ransom. So, Hitler thinks 'A quick victory in russia will make those resources mine! I'm le ebin god of war!'

Of course, the USSR doesn't collapse and germany starves in a twisted irony.

German Reconnaissance Troops made it to Khimki, a city less than 15 miles away.

From Moscow, the German front line troops made it directly north of moscow. The Germans were extremely close to capturing moscow, but the soviets mastered the art of infinite human waves military tactics.

>No. Germany's main problem in resources was literally that they couldn't trade with the Soviet union.

Lel not like all the ressources needed were offered by other countries.

>Shit all, in fact it just made Hitler more over confident.

True but the heavy focus on mobile Panzergroups would have played out differently with more time and ressources.

I don't see how them reaching Moscow means they'd take it, surely Moscow wouldn't even been like Stalingrad x5

Would've ***

>>Use this as a port for a series of bombings against the Suez Canal

It's about 700 miles from Heraklion to Suez. A Ju-88 traveling on a light bomb load can just barely make it and back, but none of your escorting fighters can, so they'll die in droves.

>Focus a large part of the luftwaffe on making the Canal in operable,

The bulk of the Luftwaffe can't even make it, and you can't base so many planes on such a tiny, mountainous island.

>support Vichy France in Syria.

Nigger, you couldn't even get supply ships through to places like Tobruk. What amkes you think you can get them all the way to Syria?

>Wait until Suez Canal is incredibly damaged, this cuts off india and asia

Unless they go around Africa like they did for the most part anyway because they didn't want to run slow, vulnerable cargo ships through the Italian fleet in the Med itself.

>>Offer Britain the following terms

Why should Britain trust any terms you offer since you broke several important treaties, like the Munich and the bilateral naval treaty, within the past 5-6 years?

>Lel not like all the ressources needed were offered by other countries.
Mmmm Hmmm, I'm sure the rest of the world will be EAGER to trade with Germany (They weren't)

>True but the heavy focus on mobile Panzergroups would have played out differently with more time and ressources.

Over reliance on panzers were half the reason the eastern Front failed. Turns out using Slow moving vehicles that break down in the cold and rely on fuel is a bad idea in the largest, coldest country that's not very developed! WHO KNEW?!?!?!?!

Fair enough, I suppose. I didn't think it through.

Really makes you realize how weak Germany's influence in Africa was.

you gotta know lad that the key to stalingrads defense was the combination of how the city was planned, built, where it was built, and german failures to capture beach heads further north of the city.

Stalingrad was in a really god damn good spot, and the city center was full of ferro-concrete buildings that were bomb resistant, not to mention the factories and urban living quarters turned the northern part of the city into a maze of potential strongpoints.

Moscow, although much larger, did not have the same benefits in defense that stalingrad had. Although they surely had ferro-concrete structures, the city was much more spread out and on flat ground with only a southern flowing river.

Just a warning, I'm an armchair faggot and so you should take everything posted here with a grain of salt, just thought I'd repeat what I heard.

Operation Barbarossa was the beginning of the end.
youtu.be/A_3R-Rkn_98

Eastern front during ww2 must have been real heal on earth. 5 million german soliders served on the eastern front.

Why did they not win against the Soviet? Would they have won without the lend lease agreement? Did they even have chance from the beginning to win against soviet?

>Was Stalingrad the the beginning of the end?
Nope. That was Moscow '41.

...

Well, its not like they were doing good but Stalingrad was the straw that broke the camel's back. Stalingrad accelerated Germany's inevitable defeat, which was marked by the failure of the siege of Moscow and the US entry into the war.

Would capturing Moscow have changed anything to the point where Russia would have to capitulate??? obviously symbolic, transportation hub, gov center etc
thoughts???

...

...

...

...

provided the germans can hold moscow, leningrad falls and the north collapses.

doesn't change the fact that stalin would fight all the way to lake baikal if he had to.

Sounds plausible anyway, thanks

The Battle of Moscow was the last desperate grasp of an overstretched army. That was the turning point.

Stalingrad was never going to work. Total disaster could have been avoided, but they couldn't win.

I love this meme. Perfidious Albion is so successful with his propaganda and lies you don't even know Hitler offered England peace before during and after the invasion of France.

It was even a generous peace. England acknowledges Germany's position in the east and Germany guarantees Britians empire, offers a military alliance, and no annexations of british territory.

Churchill didn't want this to get out.

Stalin was in it and was pretty committed to defending it and probably would have negotiated a peace if it was lost. Uncle Dolf at no point even wanted to remove Stalin or the reds from power, just get the land needed to feed germany without importing grain.

>Break your treaties as shortly as a year ago
>Wonder why nobody will trust your peace offers.

Krauts autism isn't a meme, is it?

They lost when they couldn't break the soviet army like they had hoped, operation Barbarossa hinged on shattering the soviet army.

To hell with the "muh winter" it was already a logistical nightmare for the Germans to fight a sustained war against the soviets, never mind having any hope of full occupying it. If the Germans couldn't smash their army that was that.

That was why by the time of Kursk Hitler hoped to win just so he can peace out in a favorable position.

lel, hitler offering any treaty and honoring it? How stupid do you think the British were?

unlikely, that's some of the most rugged terrain on Earth, have fun getting harassed by partisans the whole way across the mountains in winter

The ottomans tried to fight there in ww1 and got absolutely fucked.

Because the German military and economy intelligence was shit.

Berlin in 1942 estimated that Soviet Union produces 8 000 000 tons of steel yearly, in reality it was 13 500 000.

Underestimating number of Soviet divisions was also a grave mistake made by the Abwehr.

Germany failed to crush the soviets in their initial attack leaving them badly overextended against an enemy with vastly larger reserves of manpower and every kind of resource. The soviets had also learned some very painful lessons in sub-arctic warfare from the Finns and as a result were much better prepared for fighting in winter than the germans who were operating on the assumption that winter uniforms weren't going to be necessary. As it turned out the red army was more tenacious than they had expected and didn't shatter as had been originally hoped.

>would they have won without the lend lease agreement
unlikely, the German offensive had already stalled and they were losing territory before the first lend lease shipment arrived. Without it the soviets almost certainly still would have won but it would have been a longer and bloodier affair.

>did they even have a chance
in my opinion no, a large command economy beats a mid sized command economy in a war of attrition every time

>that quote coming from the guy who invaded Russia

Bump

Yeah thanks lad but I am looking somethings on the whole eastern front

So how could III Reich won Stalingrad?

By not fighting it.

What makes you think losing Moscow would end the war? Stalin had already moved vital institutions east. He was prepared to fight if Moscow was lost albeit morale would have been low.

Why was the Red Army so tough?

Was it really just "human waves" and "ahhh motherland" and "nkvd gonna shoot you"?

Or was there a real quality to their strategies and leadership in some way?

Sounds like he learned his lessons.

The war was lost when Hitler sent the panzers of Army Group Center away from Moscow to complete the capture of the Kiev pocket. Capturing Stalingrad wouldn't have been enough.

Konstantin Rokossovsky was a fucking beast of a commander and they had some other good ones as well. T-34 was an incredible tank when it first rolled out and blew all german stuff out the water. And was still the best tank of the war in terms of ease of manufacture. The human wave stuff is mainly german propaganda to explain how they lost. Russians were kinda shit at first but really got it together with really advanced strategies like defence in depth.

Your daily reminder that sending them south triggered the disastrous Roslavl-Novozybkov offensive, and that if they went for Moscow immediately, they'd have had tougher defenses than when they eventaully turned back to it in October, not lighter ones. And that's ignoring whatever those forces in Kiev might do to fuck up your day.

In 1941 Moscow served as the communications hub of European Russia, with rail lines and highways radiating outward in all directions to connect the capital with principal population centers. The only significant lateral communications were those which ran through Moscow; without them, Stalin would lose the ability to shift strategic reserves to meet the gravest threats. With Moscow lost, a defensive campaign west of the Volga would be impossible at the strategic level.

The loss of Moscow also would deprive the Soviets of much of Russia's war industry, not yet relocated to the east. Twenty percent of Soviet heavy industry was located in and around the Moscow oblast, and much more lay in the path of advancing German armies moving toward the capital. A large part of Soviet industrial capacity would also be overrun in the advance to the Moscow region. In later months, the Soviets would mount a heroic effort to relocate factories and assembly lines far to the east, beyond the range of German panzers and bombers. But in the summer of 1941, these remained in the path of the hard-marching German army. If they could be taken and destroyed, the Red Army would likely never rise again.

>The USSR just lost to Finland, people didn't take them seriously
People always use this excuse but they forget to mention that the red army also steamrolled the Japanese at 1939.

They were pretty impressive on a strategic and operational scale throughout the war, but tactics were lacking.

They didn't use human waves - that's just a meme made up by people that don't understand how Soviet tactics worked. The concept of Deep Battle did superficially resemble human wave tactics, but only superficially. The general idea with Soviet tactics early in the war seemed to be overwhelming the enemy with simultaneous attacks across a wide area, the hope being that the line wouldn't be able to hold everywhere and reserves could be poured into wherever the line broke.

The problem they had was horrific leadership, especially at the small unit level early in the war. Take the Kerch landings in 1941-42, for example. The Germans only had about a company of men holding the entire Kerch peninsula, and the Soviet had several armies waiting at Taman just 15km away. Instead of just dropping the whole force at Kerch, however, they made the decision to use small barges and shipping boats to drop platoon-sized forces across the Kerch peninsula. Overall, they still had the numerical advantage, but the Germans had local numerical superiority that allowed them to eliminate several landing zones and shore up defenses before the Soviets could get their shit together. By the time the Soviets consolidated their forces and pushed out the local defenses, Manstein had diverted more forces to keep them contained, and they ended up being bottled up in the peninsula for several months until they were dislodged.

>The only significant lateral communications were those which ran through Moscow; without them, Stalin would lose the ability to shift strategic reserves to meet the gravest threats. With Moscow lost, a defensive campaign west of the Volga would be impossible at the strategic level.

Not him, but that's completely untrue.

karty.by/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/railway_SSSR_schema.jpg

>The loss of Moscow also would deprive the Soviets of much of Russia's war industry, not yet relocated to the east. Twenty percent of Soviet heavy industry was located in and around the Moscow oblast, and much more lay in the path of advancing German armies moving toward the capital. A large part of Soviet industrial capacity would also be overrun in the advance to the Moscow region.

You had prioritization of evacuation of Ukranian industry because the Wehrmacht was turning towards the Ukraine. When they turned towards Moscow, you had that stuff evacuated. If the army is aiming at Moscow in the summer, you really think the Soviets would be so stupid as to not evacuate stuff in the path of the advance?

Most generals actually did think Operation Barbarossa was a bad idea. But the German military was kind of hoping that a massive Blitzkrieg that decimated the Red Army, captured key Russian cities and most importantly Moscow, from which at the time the majority of Russian infrastructure actually originated from would result in the collapse of the Soviet union internally, or at the very least would negate their ability to really utilize their massive industrial strategy or mobilize their huge armies. But unfortunately they didn't capture Moscow, the encirclement strategies failed because the Germans didn't gain enough ground quickly enough, and they underestimated how little the Soviet Union would be effected by the German victories. Because even though the loss of 600,000 troops and scores of tanks and artillery after losing one battle seems devastating, the Russians had the manpower and industry to replace whatever they lost. However the Germans couldn't, because at the time the Germans hadn't transitioned to a war economy, and simply didn't have the industry to compete with the Ruskies long term. That's why the Blitzkrieg was a tactic that was partially out of necessity. Germany didn't have the ability to wage long drawn out wars.

I hate this quote lol. Not because it's necessarily wrong, but because being well supplied doesn't mean jack if you can't actually win on a strategic level. And that generally includes being able to win on a tactical level.

What about Soviet small arms, later war tanks (like '43 on), and Soviet small unit tactics?

I'm trying to get an idea for how Red Army forces compared to their foes at the company and smaller level.

Winter of 1941 was the beginning of the end

>The human wave stuff is mainly german propaganda to explain how they lost

Russian commanders that did not participate in the battles didnt give 2 shits about their men, they had plenty to spare.

>small arms
Not particularly good or bad, and meaningless in the grand scheme of things. If a battle ever comes down to the quality of your small arms, both sides have seriously fucked up.

>Later war tanks
Good for what they needed them for - assaulting heavily fortified positions. The Soviets were fairly reliant on high-caliber guns on their heavy tanks and assault guns, allowing them to pummel targets with direct fired high explosive shells. Individually, they weren't necessarily the best, with many glaring issues in areas like ergonomics. The IS-2, for example, had a hilariously low fire rate due to its two-piece ammunition that limited its effectiveness in single tank engagements, but by that point in the war, German armor wasn't too much of an issue compared to all the defensive positions the Red Army was having to assault.

>Small unit tactics
Not sure about that one, although from what I understand their small unit tactics were generally lacking through the end of the war.

Chamberlain pls go and stay go.

I think that you may be trying to observe the wrong metric for comparison between the forces.
Beyond the quality of weapons, one needs to look at the quantity of personnal and support weapons available to a commander and the ease of getting these on target. Having organic support for a platoon commander is worth a lot when in the heat of battle.
Another metric to be interested in is the training given to the soldiers, a proficient group of men will do better at a given task than a neophyte or novice group.
Again another part one should look at is small unit tactics and how interlinked units are.

These are some extra considerations for you, that, in my opinion, would be more important than the equipement used by both forces.

being close to moscow doesn't mean you are close to capturing it idiot.

Thats why the Heeresgruppe Mitte almost got completely destroyed in winter 41 right in front of moscow

it was never close

stop playing hoi4 and watching yt read a damn book you are a shame for this board

You're either fucking retarded or this is some shit bait.

Interesting

Yes.

>reverse search
>read wiki article
Dude what

bump

You realize napoleon already was a master of tactics and the quote comes from his own hubris being that logistics were what he struggled with and thought was the real source of difficulty in fighting wars? Honestly read a fucking book before ever posting here again you fucking uneducated nigger.

You have to take the other conquests of Germany into perspective. They took Poland fucking quick. German generals were preparing for a long campaign in France, which was over relatively quickly. They took Norway and Yugoslavia without any problems.

Hitler must have been stroking his dick looking at all these conquests. His generals were worried about Russia. They said they didn't have enough XYZ but they were wrong about France and Poland.

Other Anons pointed out the winter war, which was an embarrassment to the USSR. The officer purges and lack of modern material made them appear to be an easy target.