Why is the Battle of Stalingrad considered to be the turning point of World War II?

You are retarded

High quality argument

No, just entire Europe would be Red.
t. Glantz

Thank you
Also this

>USA/UK open a second front in NA
Brits already winning that

>USA/UK destroy Italy
Brits could've done that themselves

>USA/UK force Hitler to divert resources to western Europe, when they're desperately needed in Russia

Hitler already had lost in the east

>USA then demolishes Japan

You mean like how the Soviets would've?

It's called PzIV

I have to disagree with Glantz here, without American support the Soviets wouldn't be able to push into the rest of Europe. They would still be able defend their territory, but the result would be a stalemate. They simply couldn't muster the needed resources domestically for their production and equipping their army with trucks, communication equipment, and food, among others, without sacrificing their historically massive weapons production or bringing the economy near to the point of collapse. Bagration was so impressive because it commenced at the peak of western Allied support, both direct and indirect.

>USA destroys Japan
>You mean like the Soviets would've
With what landing craft?

Oh look, it's one of them big-head tanks!

Fool if it wasnt for the marco polo bridge incident the soviets would have lost.
Actually no if it wasnt for USA involvement in the chinese theatre during the first civil war, the chinese would have joined the axis and crushed the communist PRC and then be able to hammer and anvil through siberia to meet the germans at the urals

>Destruction of 6th Army
>first undisputable defeat for Krauts
>USSR pushed Krauts out of the Caucascus region
>shifted strategic momentum to USSR

Kursk can be considered to be a turning point for a few of the same, and a few different reasons
>last time Germans would ever have strategic momentum
>Germany would have no major victories on the Eastern front post-Kursk
>destruction of thousand of German tanks
>lend-lease started kicking in full time for USSR, leading to USSR having minimal supply concerns

Moscow wasn't too much of a turning point, largely because Germany recovered from the loss (to an extent) in spring/summer of '42.

Stalingrad was the Germans chance of taking out the main rail hub and connection to Siberia and the connection to the Caucasus oil fields. If it was successful reinforcing Moscow and Petrograd would have been extremely hard as well as refueling the army.

The Germans went all in on Stalingrad because it would block rail reinforcement to the oil supply which was the main objective.

The USSR destroyed 600,000 men and essentially guaranteed Germany would not be able to destroy it as a political entity and instead would have to make a negotiated peace at best.

From 1943 on German strategy and Russian strategy also changed from offense and defensive positions

Because retards think that Nazi Germany could've actually won WW2.

...

Soviets were more then capable to organize a landing over a couple of miles of water from Manchuria, Americans had a harder job of island hopping the entire Pacific to get to Japan.

Moscow was a minor defeat after an otherwise very successful offensive. The Red Army had been badly hurt in 1941 and the Germans had a realistic chance of winning the war in 1942, if they could repeat their success. They couldn't and after Stalingrad they had no realistic hope of winning the war in the east.
By the time of Kursk the Germans were already on the defensive and even if Kursk had been a success it would have no changed the strategic situation.

Germany lost the majority of the 6th Army

Because Germany was generally on the offensive before it and on the defensive afterwards.

Not quite EVERY battle, but the overwhelming majority of them for sure.

The Germans still retained general initiative on the Eastern Front in 1942, after Moscow. By Kursk, they were on the defensive everywhere except where they concentrated for one last ditch offensive that gained 0 ground.

Ehh, given their performance in the Kurils (which itself was only really possible with the lending of American ships anyway), that's highly doubtful that the Soviets could do much to mainland Japan. They'd probably have to settle for "only" overrunning Manchuria, Korea, and the Japanese positions in China.

>Soviets were more then capable to organize a landing over a couple of miles of water from Manchuria

Literally all the shipping the Soviets used to retake Sakhalin Island was provided by the U.S.

>If it wasn't for Pearl Harbor Soviets would've lost

Not lost but without the U.S., the Soviets would have been forced to sign a cease fire with Germany, leaving them in control of the most valuable parts of the U.S.S.R. and placing them in a cold war situation, where the Germans had the technological advantage.

It was a big battle

europoors too jealous to believe this, russians themselves know the american support saved them.

Don't you talk shit about the KV-2

>Brits already winning that
With American tanks
>>USA/UK destroy Italy
Not without American tanks
>Hitler already had lost in the east
The eastern front was a nightmare for the Russians until the winter of 41-42 and he's right, if the Germans were allowed to reinforce the east they could not be dislodged from their positions
>You mean like how the Soviets would've?
They couldn't(??)

you are a fucking moron

>shifted strategic momentum to USSR
Not really, Kursk did that.

They wouldn't be able to send their only inflatable raft across any large body of water. The japanese without america's action would have entire fleets waiting for the russians and russians would have zero (0) ships.
checked

The German military lost over 10% of their entire military in that battle.

>Why is the Axis loosing 750k men and irreplaceable amounts of equipment considered to be the turning point of World War II?

The thing about Stalingrad is that to Hitler, a lot of focus was on the idea of "you win this one big strategic battle and then BAM, the enemy just crumples and you can sweep over them", and he had reason to believe this considering basically every european power he fought other than Britain he conquered in a month each. There was so much thrown at Stalingrad, and they lost. They lost badly, to the point that the amount of manpower killed in that battle was irreplaceable in any short amount of time.

Now the soviets lost considerably more, but percentage-wise they could take that hit much easier than the Germans could. If there is any one thing Russia has always had on its side, it's sheer numbers and the ability to just throw away lives and keep going.

The fact that Kursk was not fought to capture some strategic objective, but merely to shorten the front line tells you a lot about the situation in 1943.

It wasn't really so much to shorten the line as it was to annihilate the large number of Soviet forces in the salient.

He isn't wrong. Even the homely little T-34 was sexier

Unlike WW1 where even in late 1917 the Central Powers could conceivably still win, WW2 basically set in stone that Germany was buying time until its inevitable loss once Stalingrad happened.

>It was Hitler's idea
>Russians zerg rushed us
Are Wehrmacht generals really still posting here?

The T-34 is the definition of function over form

It's still a far cry from the grand offensives they had planned in 41 and 42.

Not him, it wasn't Hitlers idea, he just made it the top priority and ordered the Caucasus offensive to stop (the original objective) to divert forces to Stalingrad

its a terrible meme, i dont know who or why thought it should be in education

the barbarossa offense saw 1/3 of the german infantry lost and 2/3 of their equipment lost

fall blau started with most of the division not at their full strenght, it was doomed to fail

Losses in manpower were high but equipment maybe even more so - probably the most prominent example being trucks, very important for strategic mobility. The Wehrmacht lost 10,462 trucks in November 1942, 11,053 in December, and a devastating 53,969 in January 1943. No other month even comes close to these losses. The losses of trucks in January alone exceeded the number of trucks supplied to the Wehrmacht for all of 1942, which was 49,707. The number presumably includes trucks taken from outside of Germany, since 1942 truck production was only 43,000.
More info on the figures are available in this book
books.google.com/books?id=rAlNsmScl3AC&printsec=frontcover&dq=germany and the second world war manpower&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjawqfUobrXAhVW6WMKHXh3AJ4Q6AEIPDAF#v=snippet&q=Trucks&f=false
pages 684 and 805

Without Stalingrad you can't control the Caucasus. It allows the Russians to launch an offensive that would cut off all German troops in the Caucasus.

They didn't seem too concerned with securing their position for Stalingrad either when they deployed under equipped Italian and Romanian divisons on the flanks, removed Panzer divisions from the strategic reserve and the entire plan meant a frontage of hundreds of kilometers manned by under strength divisions

In hindsight it seems pretty stupid to rely on Italians and Romanians, but WW2 commanders had very little information to base their decisions on. The Germans thought the Russians were throwing everything they had into Stalingrad just like them. They had no idea the Russians had enough reserves for Operation Uranus.

Only some people view it as the turning point of WW2. The Battle of Moscow is also a popular choice. Personally, I think that September 1, 1939 was the turning point of WW2.