the turning point?

Discussions on WW2 in Eastern Europe.
User avatar
General Patton
Member
Posts: 320
Joined: 25 Sep 2002 21:48
Location: USA

Post by General Patton » 08 Nov 2002 23:15

If gas was sucha problem, then how did Guderian advance 800kmsouth to Kiev, and then back to Moscow. The battlefor Moscow would not have been like stalingrad, becusae the Russians were not prepared and werent in great strength. they used civilians to build defenses. The Russiians were in much greater strength when the Germans actually attacked, aided by Siberian troops.

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:06
Location: Russia

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 08 Nov 2002 23:21

he did not advanced to Kiev he advanced to Lokhvica - hardly 800 km - the operation after were possible to captured Russian fuel - that became available after capture of Kiev. also lets see you figures on the Russian strength in the region as well as their source (and don't give me Ambrose)

User avatar
General Patton
Member
Posts: 320
Joined: 25 Sep 2002 21:48
Location: USA

Post by General Patton » 08 Nov 2002 23:29

What do you consider the turning point, oleg

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:06
Location: Russia

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 08 Nov 2002 23:30

I alredy posted my oppinion in the beginnig of the thread

User avatar
General Patton
Member
Posts: 320
Joined: 25 Sep 2002 21:48
Location: USA

Post by General Patton » 08 Nov 2002 23:32

smolensk was a german victory though? WHy a turing point

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:06
Location: Russia

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 08 Nov 2002 23:37

General Patton wrote:smolensk was a german victory though? WHy a turing point
Indeed it was. However Germans spent way too much time and resources there – this battle through the whole operational German timetable out of the window – the difficulties cited by Halder are direct results of the engagements around Smolensk.

User avatar
General Patton
Member
Posts: 320
Joined: 25 Sep 2002 21:48
Location: USA

Post by General Patton » 08 Nov 2002 23:42

UNderstandable. Also moving of factories to Ural mnts. All depends on your view. Smolensk was a major setback, but turning point, no. Goes to moscow

coldam
In memoriam
Posts: 197
Joined: 21 Oct 2002 23:51
Location: all at sea

Post by coldam » 09 Nov 2002 00:16

I think the critical point was
1) the thinking that led
to Barbarossa

the turning point was
the late start (june 22, 1941?)

Qu: Did not Von Rundstedt
after the summer of 1941
advocate pulling back all the way
to
the pre-invasion borders?

...peter

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:06
Location: Russia

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 09 Nov 2002 00:30

General Patton wrote:UNderstandable. Also moving of factories to Ural mnts. All depends on your view. Smolensk was a major setback, but turning point, no. Goes to moscow
adavance on Moscow was code named Taifun.

User avatar
General Patton
Member
Posts: 320
Joined: 25 Sep 2002 21:48
Location: USA

Post by General Patton » 11 Nov 2002 23:09

I know, operation typhoon, started oct. 5

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:06
Location: Russia

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 11 Nov 2002 23:11

General Patton wrote:I know, operation typhoon, started oct. 5
well then consequntly it is not a part of Barbarossa.

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 16:59
Location: Europe

Post by Qvist » 14 Nov 2002 12:54

I'd say Stalingrad was the decisive turning point, as it marked the point where the overall strategic initiative passed out of German hands never to return.

cheers

julian
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 07:54

Post by julian » 14 Nov 2002 13:11

It depends how you define 'turning point', if you were to define the term as meaning the period when the momentum or confidence to obtain the objectives laid down pre Barbarossa, evaporated, then perhaps the defeat on the outskirts of Moscow could be considered as the 'turning point'. The fact that when the offensive resumed, it was decided to take a new approach, vis a vis the southern offensive(Operation Blue), was an admission of the failure of Operation Barbarossa. If the turning point was defined as the irretrievable point, beyond which the initiative for future offensives was wrested away from the Germans, then the failure of Operation Citadel was the 'turning point'

Cheers
Julian

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 16:59
Location: Europe

Post by Qvist » 14 Nov 2002 13:24

Agreed, except for the Citadel point. If we relate to "Barbarossa" as the 1941 plan, the the turning point is certainly some time in 1941. If we relate to "Barbarossa" as the campaign in the East in general, then I'd stick to Stalingrad, descriptively rather than essentially. i.e: From the point where the German offenisve at Stalingrad stalled, the strategic initiative rested with the Soviets (and not neccessarily just or primarily because that particular offensive stalled). From the latter angle, I doubt if it is possible to satisfactorily answer the question, but I'd tend to place it approximately at the same time - late 1942, or possibly a little later - because this was the time when the basic strength relation shifted decisively in the Soviet favour. Mansteins counterstroke did not mean a reconquest of strategic initiative but rather a local operational success. And I am not really inclined to see Citadel as something that could conceivably have regained the strategic initiative for the Germans. It was just one among several battles of comparable size that summer, and what they in toto indicated was that the Ostheer no longer generally had the resources to successfully carry out large scale operations, either defensive or offensive. A different outcome at Kursk would not have changed this IMO.

cheers

Rick-rs
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: 04 Apr 2002 12:14
Location: Rotterdam

Post by Rick-rs » 14 Nov 2002 13:56

I wonder,and maybe Oleg has a view on this,that the real turning point was not the numbers ore the bare facts where the Germans lost,but I honestly believe that in Stalingrad the Russians not only stop the German warmachine(they did that earlier)but really wiped them out,in doing so they prooved that the Germans could be overwon,and in this way it boosted fighting spirit in the Red Army to never earlier reached heights.

And something also overlooked,the tactics of the Russians improved enormesly during this periode.

Cheers Rick

Return to “WW2 in Eastern Europe”