Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 17th, 2010, 01:47 PM   #31
Citizen
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 28
Re: D-Day or Stalingrad???


If D-Day would never have been, I believe I would've learnt Russian in school (as for now, ja na gavarjoe pa roeskja). If Stalingrad would never have been, I believe the countless Russian and German soldiers would've died somewhere else on the Eastern Front.

Therefore, I consider D-Day to be of more importance.
Stuyvesant is offline  
Remove Ads
Old October 18th, 2010, 01:35 AM   #32
vid
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2009
From: Slovakia
Posts: 1,608
Re: D-Day or Stalingrad???


Quote:
If Stalingrad would never have been, I believe the countless Russian and German soldiers would've died somewhere else on the Eastern Front.
Don't you think instead of learning Russian you'd be Nazi-saluting, and possibly hunting last remaining Jews of Europe and/or fighting somewhere very far for more lebensraum? I find this a realistic-in-scary-way possibility
vid is offline  
Old October 18th, 2010, 02:00 AM   #33

Alcibiades's Avatar
Chameleon
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Kragujevac,Serbia
Posts: 10,740
Blog Entries: 2
Re: D-Day or Stalingrad???


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuyvesant View Post
If D-Day would never have been, I believe I would've learnt Russian in school (as for now, ja na gavarjoe pa roeskja). If Stalingrad would never have been, I believe the countless Russian and German soldiers would've died somewhere else on the Eastern Front.

Therefore, I consider D-Day to be of more importance.
That depends.More importance to what?To whom?Do you mean the outcome of WWII?If so,Stalingrad is undeniable WAAAY more imortant than D-Day.In fact,you can make a case that D-Day didn't really made all that much difference to the outcome.Maybe shorten it for a couple of months or so(if even that).

If you refere to the post-war world,that is wide open to debate.It is true that Red Wave would have splashed across the Continent if there was no Allied landing and invasion.But the poster before me is equally valid in pointing out that had there been no bloody German defeat(s) on the Eastern Front,it is althogether possible that Germany would not have lost the war,and it would be Nazis who dominated the continental Europe.
Alcibiades
Alcibiades is offline  
Old October 18th, 2010, 02:22 AM   #34

Alcibiades's Avatar
Chameleon
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Kragujevac,Serbia
Posts: 10,740
Blog Entries: 2
Re: D-Day or Stalingrad???


Quote:
Originally Posted by beorna View Post
Kursk was militarily more important than Stalingrad, indeed.
Nope
Alcibiades
Alcibiades is offline  
Old October 18th, 2010, 07:26 AM   #35

Black Dog's Avatar
Idiot of the year 2013
 
Joined: Mar 2008
From: Damned England
Posts: 9,970
Blog Entries: 2
Re: D-Day or Stalingrad???


Stalingrad. Even though Kursk was the first, all out bloody nose for the Nazis. The Nazis blamed Von Paulus for Germany's "defeat" at Stalingrad: they couldn't do the same about Kursk. Kursk showed the USSR's overwhelming might in manpower, whereas Stalingrad was a battle of attrition ended by encirclement. But Stalingrad was an obsession of both Hitler and Stalin, a symbol with more value than the destroyed city itself.

But in fact, the German effort on the Eastern front had lost its chance in the first year of the invasion of the USSR: the retreat from Moscow was a chance missed, and after that, Germany's main actions were limited or defensive. Kursk, after all, was an attempt to merely straighten out a salient, not a full on race to Moscow.

D-Day was (a) long overdue (according to Stalin) and (b) was not strictly necessary to assure the downfall of the Nazis. Had the same thing happened in the 2nd WW as the 1st WW, (i.e. Russia had stopped fighting), I have a feeling that any Allied effort would have been dealt with by Germany, not enough to assure German victory, but to prolong the war considerably.
Black Dog is offline  
Old October 18th, 2010, 08:14 AM   #36

Super Six 4's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 110
Re: D-Day or Stalingrad???


Well, I'd have to say Stalingrad. I mean, if you think about it, that's basically when the Germans started falling back and the Sovs started counterattacking and pushing the Germans back literally to their own doorstep (Reichtag).

D-Day, however, was important as it freed up France, and eventually Belgium, etc, so it helped the citizens that had to live for years under Nazi control.

However, like icedrake says above-the course of the war was changed by Stalingrad...well for the European theater, at least.
Super Six 4 is offline  
Old October 18th, 2010, 08:59 AM   #37

Corbulo's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Belfast
Posts: 348
Re: D-Day or Stalingrad???


I think Stalingrad was vital for Soviet morale and was instrumental in instilling a sense of belief in the Russians that they could beat the Germans. However the innitial jubiliation over Stalingrad was shattered when the Russian Winter offensive was smashed by Von Manstein in March 1943, in what became known as "Manstein's Back Hand Blow" This culminated in the 2nd battle of Kharkov and the subsequent Donets campaign which cost the Soviets an estimated 52 divisions.Due to Manstein's tactical brilliance and the audacity of Hausser's SS Panzer Korps the Germans were able to once again stabalise the Front, giving them a measure of revenge for Stalingrad, restoring confiedence and putting themselves in a position were they could regain the innitative for the forthcoming Summer offensive.

This proved to the Russians that even a wounded Wermacht was still a dangerous beast with many teeth. So much so that a fearful Stalin is said to have sent feelers out to his agents in neutral Switzerland, offering the Germans a truce in which they would be allowed to keep all the territorial gains they had made in the last two years of war in exchange for a cessation of hostilities!! Hitler characteristically refused, presumably seeing this as a sign of weakness!!

This set the stage for Operation Zitadelle and the Titanic Battle of Kursk, which completely dwarfed D-Day in scale and significance and led directly to the ultimate defeat of Nazi Germany. Up until then the USSR had never defeated a German Summer offensive. With this great victory the Red army had smashed forever the myth of German invincibility and from then on the Germans were always on the defensive in the East. This was the true turning point of the War!!

As for North Africa although its importance to the British was immense, maintaining the link with India and the far east, preventing Rommel and his Africa Korps from bursting over Suez and fanning out into the oil rich Persian gulf. To the Germans it had always been a sideshow, this is easily testified by the realitively small amount of troops, weapons and equipment allocated to the Deutches Afrika Korps much to Rommels annoyance. It was only in the latter part of 1942 were the theatre was upgraded to a priority theatre of operations by the Germans and by then it was far too late.

The importance of D-Day however should not be underestimated, politically its importance is very great, and helped to prevent the West from falling under Soviet hedgemony. However tactically it kept so many important German forces pinned down in the West, the consequences of its failure for the Eastern Front may have been dire, it is not totally inconcievable that the Wermacht having realised troops from the West may have allowed Germany stem the tide of the Soviet advance in Poland. Also the advanced weapons programme was already about to bear fruit and this could have allowed the Germans to possibly turn the tables against the Allied bomber fleets whilst simulataneously launching devasting attacks on the UK. The possiabilties are endless!!
Corbulo is offline  
Old October 18th, 2010, 10:15 AM   #38

blacksmit049's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Manila
Posts: 1,247
Blog Entries: 1
Re: D-Day or Stalingrad???


Stalingrad. They already said my thoughts.
blacksmit049 is offline  
Old October 18th, 2010, 03:18 PM   #39
Citizen
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 28
Re: D-Day or Stalingrad???


Quote:
Originally Posted by Alcibiades View Post
That depends.More importance to what?To whom?Do you mean the outcome of WWII?If so,Stalingrad is undeniable WAAAY more imortant than D-Day.In fact,you can make a case that D-Day didn't really made all that much difference to the outcome.Maybe shorten it for a couple of months or so(if even that).

If you refere to the post-war world,that is wide open to debate.It is true that Red Wave would have splashed across the Continent if there was no Allied landing and invasion.But the poster before me is equally valid in pointing out that had there been no bloody German defeat(s) on the Eastern Front,it is althogether possible that Germany would not have lost the war,and it would be Nazis who dominated the continental Europe.
Alcibiades
More importance to what indeed.

For an veteran of Utah Beach, D-Day would be of more importance. The same could be said for someone from Normandy or for all that its worth now, an inhabitant of France, Belgium or the Netherlands. But naturaly, it was nothering compared to the scale of Stalingrad.

I found and find it quite impossible to answer the question. Importance. Would the impact of the battle of Stalingrad have been alot different if hundred thousands would have died and left Germany in control of the city for a while? Would the soldiers not have met at another place if the Soviets had decided to surrender the town at the arival of the first Germans in order to strengthen their defense elsewhere?

In my opinion, the battle of Stalingrad was inevitable. Two huge powers were in war, their soldiers had to meet on one point. I don't believe it makes much difference wether it was Stalingrad or Belgorod.

D-Day however openend up a whole new front, influcencing the situation of Western Europe directly.

If the question would have been: 'What do you consider more important, D-Day or Operation Barbarossa', my answer would have been Barbarossa. But in this case, my vote would go to D-Day.
Stuyvesant is offline  
Old October 18th, 2010, 04:17 PM   #40

Unteroffizier Rizz's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 22
Re: D-Day or Stalingrad???


Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Dog View Post
Stalingrad. Even though Kursk was the first, all out bloody nose for the Nazis. The Nazis blamed Von Paulus for Germany's "defeat" at Stalingrad: they couldn't do the same about Kursk. Kursk showed the USSR's overwhelming might in manpower, whereas Stalingrad was a battle of attrition ended by encirclement. But Stalingrad was an obsession of both Hitler and Stalin, a symbol with more value than the destroyed city itself.

But in fact, the German effort on the Eastern front had lost its chance in the first year of the invasion of the USSR: the retreat from Moscow was a chance missed, and after that, Germany's main actions were limited or defensive. Kursk, after all, was an attempt to merely straighten out a salient, not a full on race to Moscow.

D-Day was (a) long overdue (according to Stalin) and (b) was not strictly necessary to assure the downfall of the Nazis. Had the same thing happened in the 2nd WW as the 1st WW, (i.e. Russia had stopped fighting), I have a feeling that any Allied effort would have been dealt with by Germany, not enough to assure German victory, but to prolong the war considerably.
I give A LOT of credit to the Germans for forging such powerful military machines over the course of history(Prussia, 2nd Reich, WW2)...but, I have to disagree with your statement. I believe that the U.S. could have handled Germany with it's somewhat superior manpower and extremely superior economy. Had the Russians dropped out of this war(And this is a huge hypothetical), it would have become a war of attrition on the western front with the Allies eventually winning out. I don't believe that Germany in WW2 had that much better of an economy than the Germany of WW1. Can anyone dispute this?
Unteroffizier Rizz is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
dday, stalingrad



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stalingrad or Moscow, which was more decisive for the German defeat? neofelis War and Military History 71 December 22nd, 2010 06:24 PM
David M. Glantz Fights for the Truth About Stalingrad Belloc War and Military History 1 April 3rd, 2010 04:47 PM
Stalingrad Scourge Speculative History 60 August 12th, 2009 03:33 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.