The battle of Stalingrad was the turning point of ww2

No, Moscow was.
Stalingrad was just when German victory became highly improbable.
After Kursk, their defeat was almost inevitable.

t. myths and realities of the eastern front

good work tho

...

>dude let's just ignore the extra 1000km of frontline and more than 1 million Soviet troops around Kiev that could have struck at any point lmao

But he's talking about Stalingrad, not Kiev. That makes it an even dumber 1942 argument, that he should have tried to attack Moscow AGAIN, after it had been enormously reinforced.

Antonescu government was not fascist.

can someone explain the logic of the Anglo/western Allies?

was a Bolshevik-dominated eastern Europe a lesser evil than a Nazi-dominated eastern Europe?
keep in mind, people didn't know about the extent of the Holocaust until after the war
>Germany attacked England/France first
actually no, read up on it
the Western Allies, with Churchill at the front, wanted a war with Germany

Had germany defeated the Soviet Union they wouldn't be just controlling mitteleuropa, they would be controlling the whole of continental europe + Caucasus and asian parts of soviet union. War with the Soviets was not apparent at first, the British and the French were just trying to stop Nazi expansionism, the British were deathly afraid of German rearmament and that Germany would go on to dominate continental affairs, since the Soviets also wanted the same, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" as the saying goes. Also, Soviet Union in 1930's was very different from the post war SU in both scale and power.

Attacking Moscow again even in the event of a breakthrough and encirclement just produces another Stalingrad just much earlier. The value of Moscow has been highly trumped up by historians to hammer the point the war was doomed from the start. But urban centers were not of critical value at this time, even with the Moscow rail network. The war was all about the Caucasus and Caspian oil, it was there where it was decided and there where it was lost.

>was a Bolshevik-dominated eastern Europe a lesser evil than a Nazi-dominated eastern Europe?
Yes. Nazism openly flouted treaties they signed the moment they became inconvenient, and proved to be warmongering, risk-acceptant, and hard to predict. Communism was bad, no two ways about it, but ultimately a much more stable, "conventional" bad, one that would weigh risks and be much more cautious, and ultimately less destructive.

>actually no, read up on it
the Western Allies, with Churchill at the front, wanted a war with Germany
You mean, the Churchill that was a powerless backbencher and a pariah until the war made him look less like a hobo preaching the end is nigh and more like a visionary?

But there wouldn't have been a breakthrough. One of the main reasons they tried a southern strategy in 1942 was because the defenses were so much thinner there at that point.

>/pol/

They did know about the holocaust
They did known about the effects of GP-ost
Hitler declared war on Poland after Britain and France said they would help defend Poland.
Churchill wasn't even in power when the war started, you moron

the absolute fucking state of /pol/

Veeky Forums is so fucking paranoid about /pol/ it's getting sad

>They did know about the holocaust
I said the EXTENT of the Holocaust
everyone knew Jews and other minorities were suffering, but the death camps were not revealed yet

>They did known about the effects of GP-ost
oh that secret plan that had all records of it burned?
people knew about that?

>Hitler declared war on Poland after Britain and France said they would help defend Poland.
exactly, Germany didn't declare war on France and Germany
Hitler thought they would do nothing, as they had did when he took Austria and Czechoslovakia

>Churchill wasn't even in power when the war started, you moron
I know, but he was war-mongering for a while
and was a known anti-German

You'll have to define turning point.

Technically, Axis hopes for victory were crushed before that, at Moscow and Midway. But the Axis were not "on the backfoot" after those battles. It unavoidably blunted their chances of victory, but they still had the military advantage at that point.

The second half of 1942 is where the "tide turns" - where the Axis loses the advantage and the initative shifts to their opponents, beginning the process of actually defeating them (rather than holding them off). They couldnt win after 1941, but it wasnt until Stalingrad and Guadalcanal that the Allies were actually "winning".

>Veeky Forums is so fucking paranoid about /pol/ it's getting sad
He says, while his post is pure /pol/

>I said the EXTENT of the Holocaust
And you're wrong, since things like the Witold Report were very much around in wartime. Why do you think they considered bombing Auschwitz (even if they did ultimately decide against it) if they weren't aware of the extent of the murder going on there? Why go for a target all the way in Poland instead of the much larger and closer ones in western Germany?

>oh that secret plan that had all records of it burned?
Please come back when you have some idea what you're talking about, /pol/tard. This might help.

worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/GPO/gpo sources.htm#Versions of the GPO

>exactly, Germany didn't declare war on France and Germany
He just declared war on a country they were in a protective alliance against. War against one is war against all and all that.

>I know, but he was war-mongering for a while and was a known anti-German
He was not in government. His opinions were literally irrelevant to policy, anymore than a random Democrat in the House of Representatives shapes policy today.