Turning point on the Eastern Front

Discussions on the Winter War and Continuation War, the wars between Finland and the USSR.
Hosted by Juha Tompuri
Post Reply
lewis1995jones
New member
Posts: 1
Joined: 07 Nov 2016, 20:03
Location: Manchester

Turning point on the Eastern Front

#1

Post by lewis1995jones » 07 Nov 2016, 20:11

Hi everyone,

This is my first post on this forum so i'm relatively new to all of this. Anyway i'm in my final year of a history degree at University and for my dissertation i have chosen to research and write about what the turning point on the Eastern Front for the Wehrmacht Army was. I'm most likely going to focus on the Battles of Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk as my main areas of research to come to some form of conclusion. Im interested to know what you guys think is the turning point and anything else relevant to this topic.

Thanks for your time :)

Lewis

(Please note i am by know means asking for people to write this dissertation for me but want to simply listen to other opinions on what they think was the turning point)

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Turning point on the Eastern Front

#2

Post by stg 44 » 07 Nov 2016, 22:17

Depends on what you consider THE turning point. David Glantz said about the Eastern Front: "Moscow determined that the Germans wouldn't win the war, Stalingrad that they would lose, Kursk how fast".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Clz27nghIg
So IMHO failing to take Moscow in 1941 was the fatal error even if theoretically in terms of the Eastern Front they might have stalemated without Stalingrad. They were still going to lose the war because the US entered it, which effectively means anyone against their team is going to lose. If Moscow fell and the Soviet state started to fall apart as a result then things might change, so for the Germans to have had any chance of winning they needed to take the Soviet capital in 1941 and dismantle the Soviets before the USA weighed in on the war. Keeping Moscow meant the Soviet state stabilized and they could really marshal their resources to fight a long attritional war, losing the capital in 1941 would have severely undermined Stalin's ability and legitimacy to rule and might have resulted in him purging people he felt were to blame. In 1941 his leadership was not particularly rational and with losing the core of Soviet state power he might mentally unravel. It is only really possible for the Soviet state to collapse or at least unravel is Moscow falls and is held by the Germans, which can only happen in 1941.

It is a lot harder to see the Soviets being defeated after the winter of 1941-42 despite their immense losses, while it is clear that the Germans had effectively shot their bolt and were waiting to be defeated by 1942, though that was not realized at the time by any of the players. Certainly by early 1943 when FDR issued the Unconditional Surrender statement the Allies were convinced they were going to win big soon, so negotiating was pointless at that point. Psychologically for the Allies then Stalingrad and Tunisia were the turning points as far as knowing they would win the war eventually, so Kursk was certainly NOT any sort of turning point (I'd argue it was only possible because the Soviets let it happen), but IMHO Moscow was the point at which the Germans would only win the war in the East by intense luck, though stalemating the Soviets was possible if they didn't screw up with Case Blue in 1942. By stalemate I mean inflict so many losses on the Soviets that they couldn't access the pools of manpower they mobilized for the army in the territories occupied by the Germans by May 1943, which helped get them to Berlin and win the war. The US and UK strategic bombing effort would eventually defeat the Luftwaffe and collapse the German economy in 1945 even with the Soviets stalled in the East by then, so the war would end some time in 1945-46 even best base scenario on the Eastern Front from 1942 on.


User avatar
Cult Icon
Member
Posts: 4472
Joined: 08 Apr 2014, 20:00

Re: Turning point on the Eastern Front

#3

Post by Cult Icon » 08 Nov 2016, 01:55

Turning point on the Eastern Front is considered to be Smolensk (July-August 1941) by Glantz and soviet scholars. I find this very convincing and I believe that the German POV shows that this is correct.

Case Blue/Stalingrad can be considered the last powerful Axis offensive with 'grand strategic' effects.

Kursk was a much weaker operation that made the German army badly positioned to defend against the Soviet summer/fall offensives.

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 7028
Joined: 04 Jun 2004, 20:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Turning point on the Eastern Front

#4

Post by Art » 08 Nov 2016, 09:56

Cult Icon wrote:Turning point on the Eastern Front is considered to be Smolensk (July-August 1941) by .... soviet scholars.
Are you sure? The classical formula is that the decisive turn on the Eastern Front was a period when strategic infinitive was lost by Axis and won by the SU. That period started with operations "Uranus" and ended with the battle of Kursk. So it was considered quite a span of time not really a "point".

User avatar
Cult Icon
Member
Posts: 4472
Joined: 08 Apr 2014, 20:00

Re: Turning point on the Eastern Front

#5

Post by Cult Icon » 08 Nov 2016, 14:38

Art wrote: Are you sure? The classical formula is that the decisive turn on the Eastern Front was a period when strategic infinitive was lost by Axis and won by the SU. That period started with operations "Uranus" and ended with the battle of Kursk. So it was considered quite a span of time not really a "point".
I thought this was the "western" view, which is wrong.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Turning point on the Eastern Front

#6

Post by stg 44 » 08 Nov 2016, 17:56

Cult Icon wrote:Turning point on the Eastern Front is considered to be Smolensk (July-August 1941) by Glantz and soviet scholars. I find this very convincing and I believe that the German POV shows that this is correct.
I know that is considered the be the point at which things went off the rails, but there was still a shot to take Moscow in October 1941, which I am currently discussing in the What If section (no Kalinin operation). I don't think historians tend to do 'what ifs' very well if they engage in them at all, but several books on Barbarossa/Moscow do mention the diversion to Kalinin as a fatal dispersion of effort, including Glantz in his Barbarossa book.
Art wrote:
Cult Icon wrote:Turning point on the Eastern Front is considered to be Smolensk (July-August 1941) by .... soviet scholars.
Are you sure? The classical formula is that the decisive turn on the Eastern Front was a period when strategic infinitive was lost by Axis and won by the SU. That period started with operations "Uranus" and ended with the battle of Kursk. So it was considered quite a span of time not really a "point".
That was the final turn, Glantz did say that was the point at which it was determined Germany would lose the war in the East, but the war of attrition had begun with the failure to take Moscow in 1941, as the November 1941-March 1942 fighting really wore down the German military in equipment and manpower, while it allowed the USSR to mobilize it's economy for a long war. Smolensk certainly set back the German advance, but that was equally due to the logistics of having to fight that deep, deeper than intended, and convert rail and bring up the necessary supplies to attack Moscow. No offensive to the great sacrifice of Soviet soldiers during the fight for Smolensk and the Soviet offensives of August-September, but it was more a factor of logistics and dispersion of effort through the Leningrad offensive in August-September that delayed the final push (plus of course the need to clear the Kiev flank in September), via spending a lot of effort and supplies on the Northern Axis of attack.

Art, do you think that Operation Typhoon was doomed by the time it started?

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 7028
Joined: 04 Jun 2004, 20:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Turning point on the Eastern Front

#7

Post by Art » 08 Nov 2016, 18:29

Cult Icon wrote: I thought this was the "western" view, which is wrong.
Here a turn is understood as a switch from a situation "Germany is attacking, USSR in defense" to "USSR is attacking, Germany in defense". Of course, with other definitions you can get a different answer.

User avatar
Cult Icon
Member
Posts: 4472
Joined: 08 Apr 2014, 20:00

Re: Turning point on the Eastern Front

#8

Post by Cult Icon » 08 Nov 2016, 18:53

Stahel's books emphasize that Typhoon was doomed after Oct 1941. I think the other literature supports this quite heavily.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Turning point on the Eastern Front

#9

Post by stg 44 » 08 Nov 2016, 19:33

Cult Icon wrote:Stahel's books emphasize that Typhoon was doomed after Oct 1941. I think the other literature supports this quite heavily.
Which specifically? I've heard criticisms of Stahel's work as too predetermined and hung up on specific narratives to be taken as gospel.

rays
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 14:10
Location: Canada

Re: Turning point on the Eastern Front

#10

Post by rays » 08 Nov 2016, 19:57

Stg 44,

Stahel's work is created largely on primary German sources. Glantz's who approaches the same operations from primarily Russian sources. What I have found to be the most interesting thing is that both historians have the turning point in 1941 regardless of whether you are looking at the situation from a German or Russian perspective. The difference is that Stahel would put the turning point in October while Glantz has it sooner.

Stahel's works are worth a read because he gives more time and focus to the failure of logistics in being a decisive factor for the failure of the German Army to reach Moscow. A perspective not often given the attention it deserves.

If you have not read his works, I would highly recommend picking up one of his books.

-AR-

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Turning point on the Eastern Front

#11

Post by stg 44 » 08 Nov 2016, 20:01

rays wrote:Stg 44,

Stahel's work is created largely on primary German sources. Glantz's who approaches the same operations from primarily Russian sources. What I have found to be the most interesting thing is that both historians have the turning point in 1941 regardless of whether you are looking at the situation from a German or Russian perspective. The difference is that Stahel would put the turning point in October while Glantz has it sooner.

Stahel's works are worth a read because he gives more time and focus to the failure of logistics in being a decisive factor for the failure of the German Army to reach Moscow. A perspective not often given the attention it deserves.

If you have not read his works, I would highly recommend picking up one of his books.

-AR-
Thanks for the perspective. Yes I have all of Stahel's books and a number of Glantz's among other historians on the subject.

User avatar
Cult Icon
Member
Posts: 4472
Joined: 08 Apr 2014, 20:00

Re: Turning point on the Eastern Front

#12

Post by Cult Icon » 08 Nov 2016, 20:05

Stahel's books actually have the same turning point (Smolensk) as Glantz in Barbarossa Derailed. The twin pockets in the first Typhoon lunge were the 'last gasp' of the 1941 Axis force. after that, they were too weakened logistically and physically.

Stahel's weakness is the lack of soviet perspective. GFM von Bock's diary is also worth reading.

Post Reply

Return to “Winter War & Continuation War”