Stalingrad: A Turning Point for Russia as a foreign power?

[Moosferatu]

Stalingrad was the turning point of the war in the East. I have however, also been thinking, that it seems like a turning point in the development of Russia as a foreign power. Russia had seriously lagged behind other world powers, and the inefficiency of the Tsarist regimes' foreign policy was exposed in the Crimean War and particularly World War as it took Russia off the radar as a great power (or, you could argue, took it off the radar completely).

I was thinking that by Stalingrad, the Russians had basically already won the war. I'm not an expert but by this time they had a fierce army that was well equipped and was zerg rushing the Germans to death. Germany had failed to secure the Caucus oilfields and was fast running out of resources, so Russia didn't really need to rush them but the nature of the war meant they did. Being able to win the war gave them a huge amount of leverage in the world, they came out as the most powerful European state with a place in the UN SC. They were also able to develop the atomic bomb and become one of two world superpowers.

Had they not won this battle they would've been crushed into the dirt and European Russia almost definitely occupied. Russia would have never again gained a great power status.

Any thoughts or points I may have missed?

Edit: I forgot to add that I'm considering covering this for a piece of coursework so I would appreciate if anyone could recommend me some books or weblinks on the subject.

[RO Citizen]

By winning Stalingrad, they had already won the war. By losing it, I think they just lost a lot, but not all. The supplies of the Germans were already too stretched and they were fighting on a huge front. They were taking km by km, but they were empty kms. At Leningrad there was still no progess, and at Moscow they have been already repulsed. Even with the Caucasus oil, it would've been far too expensive to transfer it to at least the central front. Nevertheless, even victorious, von Paulus' army would have been too small and disorganized to resist.

The war was not won by Stalingrad, but by a long series of defeats for the Germans. The war would've been just much much much longer without Stalingrad, still. But finally, the Big Bear (in the form of USSR or other) would've still have a big power status.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

I think they had won the war even before Stalingrad..
The manpower and the armor/aircraft/artillery production of the Russian factories was something that the Germans simply could not match..

[meishern]

@Manuel I Komneno

I think they had won the war even before Stalingrad..
The manpower and the armor/aircraft/artillery production of the Russian factories was something that the Germans simply could not match..

You must be joking. Germany controlled factories in all their conquered territories. Oscar Shindler? There were thousands of entrepreneurs like him. Russia depended on USA for supplies. When Roosevelt asked Stalin what was the most important item USA should send to USSR, Stalin replied 'army boots'. Soviet technology was much more inferior than German. Poorly made copies of outdated western hardware. The vast majority of military leadership in USSR was executed during one of Stalin's purges prior to the WW2. Factories were staffed by an inefficient labor force controlled by communist bureaucrats, caring little about quality and more about '5 year plan' goals.

The war was won (in my view) when Hitler decided to attack east and west. If he left Russia alone, and convinced Japan that Hawaii is an over-rated piece of volcanic trash, with no valuable resources, history would have been different. Centralizing his control over captured territory, UK would have fallen by a similar DDay type of invasion by Germany. Right now the would would be Germany, Japan, USA, and Soviet Union as the major world super powers.

A 2 front war ran by an amateur (who lost his luck) made it impossible for Germany to win, along with american/canadian supplies/support, Stalin's ruthlessness (chaining heavy machine gunners to prevent desertion and motivate them to fight to the death) as well as Russian stubbornness.

Cheers!

meishern

[Dr. Croccer]

The Germans didn't institute total war policies untill after Stalingrad. By the time the industrial machine was rolling under Speer in late 1944 it was already far too late.

[wuote] Russia depended on USA for supplies. When Roosevelt asked Stalin what was the most important item USA should send to USSR, Stalin replied 'army boots'.

No, that's a common myth. Whilst many of the Lend Lease was important, it's doubtful that it was vital. Soviet production already took off immensely in 1943, when few LL was coming through.

Soviet technology was much more inferior than German.

In terms of military? Hardly. Soviet armour was amongst the most advanced.

Poorly made copies of outdated western hardware.

If anything it was the opposite. The Germans copied the sloped armour of the T-34 in their Panther and King Tiger tanks. The Soviets were very innovative in terms of tanks and other weaponry, despite Stalin's cronies.

The vast majority of military leadership in USSR was executed during one of Stalin's purges prior to the WW2.

After Stalingrad the Soviet

Factories were staffed by an inefficient labor force controlled by communist bureaucrats, caring little about quality and more about '5 year plan' goals.

The Soviets produced more military hardware during the entire war than any other state. The quality of their weaponry was decent, because they were often simple to manufacture, in stark constrast to the complex German tanks.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

@Manuel I Komneno




You must be joking. Germany controlled factories in all their conquered territories. Oscar Shindler? There were thousands of entrepreneurs like him. Russia depended on USA for supplies. When Roosevelt asked Stalin what was the most important item USA should send to USSR, Stalin replied 'army boots'. Soviet technology was much more inferior than German. Poorly made copies of outdated western hardware. The vast majority of military leadership in USSR was executed during one of Stalin's purges prior to the WW2. Factories were staffed by an inefficient labor force controlled by communist bureaucrats, caring little about quality and more about '5 year plan' goals.

The war was won (in my view) when Hitler decided to attack east and west. If he left Russia alone, and convinced Japan that Hawaii is an over-rated piece of volcanic trash, with no valuable resources, history would have been different. Centralizing his control over captured territory, UK would have fallen by a similar DDay type of invasion by Germany. Right now the would would be Germany, Japan, USA, and Soviet Union as the major world super powers.

A 2 front war ran by an amateur (who lost his luck) made it impossible for Germany to win, along with american/canadian supplies/support, Stalin's ruthlessness (chaining heavy machine gunners to prevent desertion and motivate them to fight to the death) as well as Russian stubbornness.

Cheers!

meishern

Following the capture of France the German industry had ceased to produce large numbers of army equipment and only came back to full production in 1943-1944..
Though the Germans were able to produce high quality tanks, aircraft etc these weapons were very complicated and their production rather slow.
On the contrary the Soviets were able to produce effective weapons like the T-34 which were easy to construct and had very good combat and moving capabilities. During Operation Barbarossa the Soviets had 14.000 tanks 3-4 times the number of the Axis tanks. Same about aircraft. Whatever the losses, which were huge for the Soviets they were able to increase this analogy during the War.
During the last days of Barbarossa, Hitler said to Guderian that if he knew the Soviets were able to produce so many tanks he wouldn't even have thought about invading the Soviet Union..

[Stario]

IMO if Stalingrad was won by the Germans it would have negligible results. Even prior to Stalingrad the majority of Soviet industries were already moved behind the Ural mountains and the rest were in the process of being moved. Now consider the climate (which the Germans were not equipped for), the home advantage the Soviets possessed, the wast distances for the Germans to cover, and the 10:1 manpower advantage that favoured the Soviets, Germany would have simply get whittled down, and, eventually pushed back, by the inevitable Soviet Counter attack(s) that would follow. Think of what happened to Napoleon. IMO, for the Germans the "Knockdown blow" came during the "Battle of Britain", then while still seeing stars they were "knocked out" after the "standing 9 count" at Stalingrad.

Though the Germans were able to produce high quality tanks, aircraft etc these weapons were very complicated and their production rather slow.

Complicated I agree but high quality; that is arguable. The German tanks for example would often suffer mechanical problems, while the T-34's could take some "abuse" prior to braking down. Sure the Germans had better fire power, but again the Soviets were able to counter with sloped armour. The Russians might have used simple ideas but they were very effective in most cases. The Germans often used complicated ideas that often had high failure rates outside the very static laboratory. AFAIC, quality arguably goes to the Germans, while, quantity clearly goes to the Soviets.

[RomanSoldier9001]

Stalingrad was the turning point of the war in the East. I have however, also been thinking, that it seems like a turning point in the development of Russia as a foreign power. Russia had seriously lagged behind other world powers, and the inefficiency of the Tsarist regimes' foreign policy was exposed in the Crimean War and particularly World War as it took Russia off the radar as a great power (or, you could argue, took it off the radar completely).

I was thinking that by Stalingrad, the Russians had basically already won the war. I'm not an expert but by this time they had a fierce army that was well equipped and was zerg rushing the Germans to death. Germany had failed to secure the Caucus oilfields and was fast running out of resources, so Russia didn't really need to rush them but the nature of the war meant they did. Being able to win the war gave them a huge amount of leverage in the world, they came out as the most powerful European state with a place in the UN SC. They were also able to develop the atomic bomb and become one of two world superpowers.

Had they not won this battle they would've been crushed into the dirt and European Russia almost definitely occupied. Russia would have never again gained a great power status.

Any thoughts or points I may have missed?

Edit: I forgot to add that I'm considering covering this for a piece of coursework so I would appreciate if anyone could recommend me some books or weblinks on the subject.

Soveits well equiped? In Stalingrad?! USSR turned to super power not Russia lets remember that USSR wasny only Russia but several republics and countries. Not only Russians fough in WWII!
As for Tsar Russia. The Imperial Russia was still a great power until the WW1. The Germans would lose this war even with Stalingrad they could take Leningrad,Stalingrad and Moscow and would still lose the war. I woulnt say Stalngrad was that big battle that changed the whole war first no battle wins you the whole war is several battles and if you want to look to one more important battle than pick Kursk was in Kurks were germans lost the edge never again they would do an offensive from Kurks was always on defensive in Eastern Front.

[Aru]

What do you mean "foreign" power? Foreign to whom?

[RomanSoldier9001]

Stalingrad is so overated German won smilar battle in Kharkov with Waffen SS and what that gave them? They still lost the edge in Kurks and stuk in defense the rest of Eastern Front.

[Moosferatu]

Sorry, that was silly of me to put 'foreign power'. Not sure why I even typed that... I should've put 'great power'.

[Prince of Darkness]

Sorry, that was silly of me to put 'foreign power'. Not sure why I even typed that... I should've put 'great power'.

Russia was already a ''foreign power'' after the Great Northern War (1700-1721).
It became a ''great power'' after the Seven Years War (1756-1763), one of the ''great five'' in Europe (GB, France, Austria, Prussia, Russia).
It became a ''world power'' after the Napoleonic Wars and took precedence over the declining Austrian Habsburgs and Ottomans and became increasingly involved in the Balkan affairs.
I would say WWII, not Stalingrad, was the ''turning point'' of Russia to become a ''Global Superpower'' along with the US.

[ivan_the_terrible]

Sorry, that was silly of me to put 'foreign power'. Not sure why I even typed that... I should've put 'great power'.

The Russian Empire had already been a 'great power' for some time, however decaying it was towards the end. If you mean the Soviet Union, then that's another thing. But how was the battle itself a turning point of anything but the fighting?

[Heathen Hammer]

The real turning point was industrialization of 1920s-30s.

[conon394]

The Soviets produced more military hardware during the entire war than any other state.

I don't think so - the USSR was massively out produced by the US. Unless you are constraining your ideal of military hardware - say to just those things the USSR made a lot of...

[Dr. Croccer]

I don't think so - the USSR was massively out produced by the US. Unless you are constraining your ideal of military hardware - say to just those things the USSR made a lot of...

Military hardware: Tanks, artillery, small arms, planes.

[conon394]

The war was won (in my view) when Hitler decided to attack east and west.

It was his only option...

If he left Russia alone

How. To do that he had to accept Soviet demands on Romania - which threaten Germany's only real significant source of Petroleum. Germany would have to start paying for the raw materials it was getting from the USSR and the only way it could that was with technology transfer that was more or less unpalatable to Germany. It means Germany would also have to accept the increasing demands from the Soviet Union about influence in the Baltic.

UK would have fallen by a similar DDay type of invasion by Germany.

That is so unlikely it laughable - I assume you never really sat down a thought about what you are saying.

AT D-Day the Allies had absolute air and sea supremacy - to have the same thing Hitler needed Navy (after Norway he had none) and a Air force with strategic range - again not something he had. Mind you both of those require something else he did not have was much fuel - the army in Russia could run on draft horses but they don't work so good pulling planes or ships.

Centralizing his control over captured territory

Would have done nothing to help the real issues Germany had - lack of Petroleum most of all and if you mean occupies all his puppets well than he turn them into unwilling states that have to be garrisoned and suffers from sabotage and the like.

Let's not forget the Allies had an absolute intelligence advantage as well - the UK may not have been able to find Stalin's spies but hey had all but wiped out Nazi intelligence on the ground. Plus Germany had nothing comparable to the ability of the US/UK to read German codes and the reports of Japanese diplomats about German actions.

Finally the US and UK were the only countries to actually have continued to think and plan for amphibious assaults in a large way before the war and had by D-day years of experience - Germany would be starting from scratch and given the fiasco that would have been Sea Lion they had a lot of work to do.

-------------------------------------------

IMO if Stalingrad was won by the Germans it would have negligible results. Even prior to Stalingrad the majority of Soviet industries were already moved behind the Ural mountains and the rest were in the process of being moved.

True - but there was a realistic objective to achieve - Destroying Soviet Oil production and waiting for next year. The reality was Germany had to strip its Army Groups to allow the 42 limited offensive. A more clear eyed view - ignoring N Africa (except for the minimal position needed to occupy the UK), and any distraction like Stalingrad combined with a focused objective of driving toward Baku and either destroying Soviet production facilities or forcing the USSR to do it in retreat and then falling back to a stable defensible line (and of course up-ing German production) - could have opened up the chance to not loose.

[DeMolay]

You must be joking. Germany controlled factories in all their conquered territories. Oscar Shindler? There were thousands of entrepreneurs like him. Russia depended on USA for supplies. When Roosevelt asked Stalin what was the most important item USA should send to USSR, Stalin replied 'army boots'. Soviet technology was much more inferior than German. Poorly made copies of outdated western hardware. The vast majority of military leadership in USSR was executed during one of Stalin's purges prior to the WW2. Factories were staffed by an inefficient labor force controlled by communist bureaucrats, caring little about quality and more about '5 year plan' goals.

ahhhh please , stop repeating the cold war propaganda that belittle the Soviets who got the dirty work done !!! Ok i'm joking , i don't seek an argument , it's just that i really don't agree with you

yes Germany controlled "most" of the factories between June 1941 and winter 1941 , but starting the spring , the Soviet industry was in process of being rebuilt behind the Ural , for instance the first Lavochkin 5 and latest Lagg-3 series 29 were arriving on the frontline by the summer 1942 , whch helped build up the planned counter offensive for the winter at Stalingrad ! The real turning point was the Battle near the Mozhaysk line (near Moscow ) in December 1941

Technology in 1941-42 ? i could talk for hours with you about this but it is not as simple as you make it sound in my humble opinion

What is best the modern T-34 that crushed the Germans at Moscow in winter 1941 and was vastly superior to any Panzer III or IV ?
What is best , the Shvak cannon , dubbed the best 20mm of WWII , that work even under -60°C , has long cannon or the MG FF Oerlikon that jammed on the 109 Emils ?
What s best the Pepeshka 41 (PPsh-41) that even German soliders loved , that almost NEVER jammed , fire 71 rounds a mag and was at least as accurate as the Schmeisser ?
What s best , one of the first Semi auto rifle Soviet reliable SVT-40 with great performances (firepower) that German troops were eager to find one because it was clearly superior to the Gewehr41 who were unreliable and very rare ?
What is the equivalent for Ground attack to the Sturmovik that the LW had ? Ju-88 ? no it's not an equivalent , far less deadlier on CAS against tanks and moving targets ? Stuka ? it was a dive bomber , amazingly brave pilots like Hans Ulrich Rudel made amazing things with the Stuka (what a pilot ! respect !) , but he was an isolated case , Soviet pilots shot down scores of poorly protected slow Stukas (in western front it was withdrawn very early ) , the Russians had the Petlyakov for dive bombing , worked just fine and was much faster . Henschel 121 ? yes but Sturmovik was MUCH more efficient
Let's move to arty , what is the equivalent of Katyusha ? Can you build cheaper and better than Degtyarev ? etc..

In 1941-1942 , Germans had superior TRAINING and coordination (doctrines ) , but in term of equipment it was not a big deal really , the GREAT strength of the Germans was the RADIO and tactical LEADERSHIP (von Manstein , Guderian etc ) , their troops in tanks , planes , vehicles were MUCH more efficient together thanks to the systematic radio use and had specific training , it was new , Germans had Modern Doctrines of war .... but the Russians learned fast ... very fast .... they were Blitzkrieging in the winter too by 1942 .. Germans had the Messerschmitt Friedrich in 1941-42 (legendary plane , unmatched at the time , except maybe in speed and high alt performance by .... the Soviet MiG of Pokryshkin ) , the awesome MG-42 and few other tech advantages but it was not really something giving them total superiority on the battlefield , because a great fighter plane doesn't win you a war , a great bomber does (it kills the guys with boots on the ground ... ) and when the Soviet Industry was rebuilt behind the Ural by late 1942 , Soviet began to receive standard decent radios and their training was much better by early 1943 , they began to equip the bulk of their troops better and better , but especially , they had MUCH better Leadership by 1943 (all their generals were starting to be very experienced , at every echelon )

What people don't want to see is that when you lose 80% of your industry and with it , most of your skilled workforce in less than a few months (between June 1941 and December ) and more than 5 million soldiers occupying your territory , you're left in a difficult situation , especially since Stalin slaughtered much of the military intelligentsia and jailed guys like Polikarpov . So they couldn't focus on quality for all their equipment , they focused on cost and reliablity and it won them the war ... Big deal when your super modern Tiger tank has engine problems and cannot work in the harsh winter and get buried in the mud , or when you lack those special complicated spare parts to make it operational for tommorow morning offensive ..

Scientifically , the Soviet were very strong , even in the 30's , their first monoplane I-16 shined in the Spanish civil war , their tanks before the outbreak of the war were the most modern , they were working on rocket planes and developped prototypes in the early 40's , in mathematics , physics they were at the forefront with other western countries (not in nuclear physics though ) .

When you say they copied Western hardware , i'm sorry but it is mostly untrue , i talk about aviation because i know a bit about the subject , but take all their planes and engines , it's all Soviet conception except the engine of the Yak fighters which was a modified French Hispano-Suiza engine that they improved a lot , you could fly without 2-3 cylinders shot down and make it home with a Lagg-3 ! Keep in mind that when Germany build one 109 or 190 , Soviet build 4 Yaks , not only because the industry of the Soviet was much bigger , but mainly because it was cheaper to produce and marginally inferior to 109 and 190's at the relevant altitudes of engagements , by 1944 it was even superior while much cheaper ..

If you study the Air war in the Eastern front between 1941 and 1944 , you will notice that when the TRAINING of the Soviet pilot match the standards of pre-war ( German and Russian pilot used to train together in 1938-39 as surprising as it may seem , consequence of Versailles treaty, too long to explain ) , Luftwaffe was suffering serious losses (particularly on its bombers ) compared to previous years .
It's important to know that by 1943 , the Soviet planes were at least as good as the Germans planes , Soviet bombers were much more numerous and efficient (IL-2 Sturmovik "aka the Black death" , Petlyakov dive bomber and level bombers ) and Soviet fighters were superior to German fighters at low altitudes in 1944 , where 90% of engagements happened in the Eastern front . Even until late 1944 , the Luftwaffe fighter squadrons continued to inflict serious losses to Soviets , but that was a handful of aces like Rall , Hartmann or Graf , and also because they had a lot of targets to choose from and freedom of initiative for free hunt as opposed to Soviet pilots who were tied to the land operations strictly , it wasn't really a case of technological superiority .


The Germans had tech advantages when the war was already lost , in 1944 ... with Panzerfaust , Stg-44 assault rifle , ME-262 schwalbe , Volksjaeger , Me-163 Komet , V2 rockets , Elektro boot XXI , and all those genius projects (on the paper ) that a desperate Reich governement tried to hurry on the frontline but that did not quite work or had no impact on the war , but Russians also had similar projects , it's just that they on the other hand were not desperate and took the time to developp them , that gave the Mig-9 , the Kalashnikov , rocket planes etc..immediately post war


I think it is more complex than what you said , the way i read your post , it seems like you basically completely belittle the Soviets ... When you say that the labour of Soviet Union was inneficient , it is true in 1941 when they had to use less skilled workforce because they had lost much of their industry , but in 1943-44 , the standards of production became much higher , even though they did not meet the American standards (who were not invaded obviously and already had higher standards of production pre-war ) , we know it from the testimonies of P-39 Airacobra pilots and mechanics (American P-39 through lend lease ) . 5 years plans were pre war , also when you say that Russia depended on the US , they indeed welcomed the help (particularly for blankets , trucks and oil ) at a time where their industry was crippled (they lacked pretty much everything ) , the help of the USA was crucial betwen 1941 and 1942 , but Historians until today are divided on the Lend Lease subject , if it was absolutely necessary for the Soviet victory or not . Sorry for long post , but in my view it's not black and white , Germans were genius , Soviets were retards who won by numbers and thanks to general winter , that's pure cold war stuff that has been disproved by historians since a long time now in many books

[conon394]

Military hardware: Tanks, artillery, small arms, planes.

OK but how do you figure the USSR "...produced more military hardware during the entire war than any other state"

That simply makes no sense - I asked my question because I figured you must be picking and choosing both categories and how you add it up... Certainly you have to be ignoring all the Military hardware of the type Navy, and all types on military transport. otherwise it not clear the USSR out produce the UK let alone the US. I suspect also you are perhaps focusing on number of planes over say weight of planes and number of engines. But sure fine show me a source.

[DeMolay]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar...g_World_War_II

USA was clearly the biggest industry , especially since USSR had to rebuild its industry .
USSR had a smaller navy than USA , Japan or UK . But in tank , vehicles and aircraft production , even with ther industry mostly destroyed the first year of the war , USSR's was still 2nd best in production