To what extent was german defeat in the battle of stalingrad a result of german failures?

The arduous Battle of Stalingrad was fought in the city on the Volga River from August 1942 to February 1943. Stalingrad was a significant industrial hub because the Red Army received its ammunition from its manufacturers, and the Volga served as a vital supply line. The Battle of Stalingrad was ultimately a conflict between egos, with Adolf Hitler, the German Führer, determined to seize control of the city bearing Joseph Stalin's name. A defeat would be a devastating blow to the spirits of both teams. The scene was thus prepared for the brutal conflict known as "Verdun on the Volga."

Historical debate centres on the Battle of Stalingrad. The German triumph appeared assured at various points during the conflict. However, as the conflict went on, a growing number of factors diminished the likelihood of a German victory, and eventually they capitulated. These causes can be divided into three main categories: Soviet achievements, German failures, and outside influences. After the Second World War, historians in the West came to the conclusion that the German defeat at Stalingrad was the result of their own mistakes, considering the Russian army to be nothing more than a force of brute strength. This was probably a result of the Cold War, particularly the reluctance to acknowledge Communist success as well as the greater accessibility of German sources after the war in contrast to the scarcity of Soviet sources. History was interpreted as a victory of Soviet resistance from the Soviet perspective, with the German attempt to conquer Stalingrad failing. Since the conclusion of the Cold War, there have been revisionist histories of Stalingrad, but they have mainly concentrated on the strategic effects of the war on the remainder of World War Two. In order to ascertain the reasons for German failure in the war without taking into account Cold War influences' prejudiced viewpoints, I feel there is a research gap that needs additional investigation. Therefore, this study will explore the research question: ‘To what extent was German defeat in the Battle of Stalingrad a result of German failures?’

This subject is significant because of the long-lasting impact the battle's outcome had on the Second World War as a whole. Stalingrad is seen by Antony Beevor as the "psychological turning point of the war". The Wehrmacht lost the strategic initiative after their loss at Stalingrad, at least on the Eastern Front.

For the purposes of this article, the Soviet encirclement of the Sixth Army in Stalingrad will serve as the definition of German defeat because, after the encirclement, the German seizure of Stalingrad was impossible. By breaking down the combat into two parts, this essay will examine the causes of the German defeat. The first part of the chapter discusses the German assault on Stalingrad and the reasons why they were unable to completely take the city at initially. The Soviet counteroffensive and how they were able to envelop the Germans are discussed in the second section. The German attempt to break free of the encirclement will not be discussed in detail in this essay. This essay will analyse both parts of the battle and show that, despite the Soviets' successful capitalization, the Germans actually lost the battle because of three crucial mistakes they made. It will do this by drawing on a variety of sources from subject experts as well as first-person accounts from commanders on both sides. These include the tactical shortcomings of the Wehrmacht, the German command's arrogance and incompetence, and Hitler's indecisiveness.

While the German Army committed the tactical error of fighting in a manner to which they were unfamiliar at this phase of the battle, two of the three factors that contributed to their failure were present throughout their assault on Stalingrad. Hitler's ambiguity.

The Germans' main advantage, the creative use of quick manoeuvre by tank units with close air support known as "blitzkrieg," was lost due to the decision to attack directly into the city and conduct an aerial bombardment beforehand. The Wehrmacht had used blitzkrieg throughout the war to swiftly subdue their adversaries. Prior to the German invasion, Stalingrad was heavily bombed from the air with more than 1000 tonnes of explosives, dramatically changing the city's terrain. The bombarded buildings left much of the city in ruins, and the battlefield was covered in smoke and flames. This had the effect of limiting the Sixth Army's ability to manoeuvre their Panzer units through this debris, negating the benefit of blitzkrieg. As a result, the war for Stalingrad evolved into a battle of attrition rather than a combat of manouevre, which the Germans had perfected as evidenced by their invasion of France in 1940. This was most noticeable during the September city fights, when every residence, business, and sewer turned into a miniature conflict over territory. The German air dominance was gone in close quarters battles because the Luftwaffe was unable to bomb Soviet positions without endangering German infantry. As a result, "the struggle turned into a battle of battering ram tactics on the German side," which meant that the German ground forces were left to engage in a form of combat that they were not accustomed to. The Sixth Army lost 60,548 soldiers between August 21 and October 20, including 12,782 fatalities. Even though these defeats highlight the challenges the Germans faced in this kind of conflict, they would ultimately prove fatal because the Germans withdrew troops from their flanks to bolster Stalingrad, leaving a frail line of Romanian and Italian troops to defend a 120-mile-long area northwest of Stalingrad. Later on in the conflict, this would be essential. This exemplifies the crucial tactical error committed by the Germans in fighting in a location that limited their ability to move quickly and manoeuvre, which ultimately led to their defeat.

Hitler's indecisiveness was another German mistake that had an impact on the German invasion. His poor choice to divide his forces in this situation was evidence of his hesitation over strategic goals. The crucial oil reserves in the Caucasus were the major target of Operation Blue, the German summer invasion of 1942. Hitler had lost his operational focus when he divided his army into Army Groups A and B and ordered Army Group B to cross the Don River and seize Stalingrad. In July 1942, if Hitler had given Stalingrad his full attention, according to General von Kleist of the 1st Panzer Army, "[4th Panzer Army] might have seized Stalingrad without a struggle... but was transferred south to support me in crossing the Don." Von Kleist singles up Hitler for responsibility in this passage. Due to the author's viewpoint, this material should be used with caution because he might be blaming Hitler rather than accepting personal responsibility for failure. Von Kleist's viewpoint, however, is in line with that of other historians, like Caddick-Adams, who asserts: "Hitler's command of the new Eastern campaign would prove disastrous... he was split repeatedly between conquering [Stalingrad] and the crucial oil resources in the Caucasus." Stalingrad was to be the "most significant achievement of the 1942 campaign," according to Hitler. Nevertheless, he continued to delay deciding where to dispatch the Sixth Army. The Wehrmacht's forces were spread too thin between these two goals, making it difficult to concentrate them at Stalingrad. As Hitler chooses not to adhere to one of the war's tenets, which dictates that superior power must be concentrated at the conflict's pivotal moment and location, this illustrates the role that Hitler's hesitation had in Germany's defeat.

Though it may be argued that the Red Army's ability to repel the Germans was a result of its own merit and achievements, this was only achievable because of German tactical blunders. True, the Red Army shown inventiveness and had strategically smart generals during this stage of the conflict. Particularly when General Chuikov assumed command of the situation in Stalingrad, this was the case. He was aware of Paulus' strategies because he had led the Soviet 64th Army during their retreat to Stalingrad. He was aware that the Germans preferred to engage in open, dispersed combat with artillery, air power, and tanks. He restricted the Wehrmacht's access to space, speed, and mobility. Chuikov divided his 62 nd Army into smaller formations to reduce the scale of the combat when it was defending Stalingrad. The Luftwaffe's air superiority was made ineffective, and Paulus' biggest advantage was negated, by his command to "hug the enemy". Chuikov also understood the significance of snipers at Stalingrad since the destruction brought on by the German bombing provided good cover. Despite their technological limitations, the Soviets were able to repel the Sixth Army because to strategies like these. Since women were known for being more patient than men when waiting for a target, these sniper teams frequently included female members. The fact that the Germans were astounded to see women engaged in combat indicates the Red Army's progressive spirit. German soldiers were terrified by this shock because it revealed that they needed to fight an entire populace in addition to an army. The Red Army in Stalingrad was methodical and creative, which unmistakably affected how the fight turned out.

But the Red Army had no defence against the German blitzkrieg. The German integration of air and ground troops and their speed outmanoeuvred the Soviets, as witnessed in the 1st Panzer Army's march towards the Caucasus before Stalingrad. As a result, while the Red Army was successful in their own right, the Germans committed a crucial error by giving up the strategies that had worked against the same opponent.

Although it was substantially exacerbated by German failures, the Soviets' desire to keep Stalingrad was one of their main advantages. The idiom from the Soviet Union, "For us, there is no land beyond the Volga," perfectly captured this commitment. The origins of this high levels of motivation have been the subject of some historical controversy. Following the war, Soviet propaganda claimed that the heroes of Stalingrad were defending Communism and their great commander Stalin. This Soviet viewpoint is constrained since it was clearly motivated to further Communist goals and would not have given much thought to historical accuracy. Stalin was the last person we thought of while in the trenches, according to Soviet combat poet Yuri Belash, demonstrating the historical veracity of the propaganda. On the other hand, the Western, anti-Communist, Thought painted the determined Soviets as vulnerable victims who were terrified of what would happen if they refused to fight. The primary piece of information used to Order 227, sometimes known as "Not One Step Backwards," served as support for this thesis16. Anyone deemed to be a cowardly soldier faced severe punishments as a result of Stalin's directive. During the Battle of Stalingrad, 13,500 Soviet citizens were put to death, according to Beevor. This data was utilised by historians from this school of thinking to conclude that the dread of punishment was the cause of the Soviet soldiers' stubborn fighting. Although Order 227 only applied to military, there were other people who were driven to support the war effort, thus this reasoning is faulty. In reality, the people of Stalingrad banded together to fortify their communities and dig anti-tank ditches to impede the Wehrmacht. This demonstrates that the Soviets' perseverance was motivated by a desire to preserve their family and their country rather than just a sense of terror. Even Soviet propaganda started to depict more Russian nationalism and patriotism instead of Communist messages. The recruiting flyer displayed a slogan along these lines: "The Motherland Calls." Many Soviet citizens, who were willing to put their lives in danger to defend their nation, related to this poster. This had an impact on the war as Soviet soldiers felt compelled to defend every structure as a fortress at great expense to German pace and resources. For instance, Chuikov noted in his memoirs that the Germans lost more soldiers while attempting to capture Pavlov's House, a modest apartment building guarded by 15 to 24 men, than they did when they captured Paris.

Even while this steadfastness to defend their nation is typically linked to Soviet achievement, it's crucial to take into account how much German cruelty contributed to their steadfastness. The Red Army was well aware of the brutal treatment of Soviet soldiers and civilians, since communist propaganda pamphlets and newspapers documented incidents like mass killings of civilians or the rape of spouses and children. The soldiers of the Soviet Union developed a real hate of the German people as a result of these deeds. When the Soviets realised what would happen to the civilians Stalin had ordered to stay in Stalingrad if they lost the city, hatred and fear were tremendous motivators. Due to the Soviets' tremendous persistence and willingness to lay down their lives to stop a German occupation of Stalingrad, this German error of excessive brutality made the conflict more difficult for them. As a result, while Soviet motivation played a significant role in the German defeat at Stalingrad, the brutality of the German troops also contributed. This reveals how the Germans' brutal tactics were a tactical error that led to their own downfall.

In conclusion, despite the Soviet Union's many victories and valiant efforts to repel the Germans, it was the Germans' tactical blunders, such as their cruelty and Hitler's hesitation regarding the relative importance of different goals, that ultimately led to their defeat.

While the Soviets' advantages helped them launch a successful counteroffensive against the Sixth Army, the Germans' primary mistakes—overconfidence and command incompetence—were the principal causes of their downfall.

The difference in operational clarity between the leaders of the Red Army and the German leaders played a role in the success of the Russian counteroffensive. To purchase time to get ready for Operation Uranus, the Soviets were prepared to engage in a pricey attrition struggle (the Soviet counter-offensive). Time is blood, as Chuikov put it. At Stalingrad, more than 1.1 million Soviet soldiers lost their lives as they fiercely repelled the German assault towards the Volga River, battling to the death for every square metre of territory. German troops only advanced 400–600 metres from September 27 to October 8, 1942, indicating that this effectively slowed down the German onslaught. This has two significant effects. First, there was a serious grounding out of the Sixth Army. The Germans suffered 700,000 casualties (killed, wounded, and captured) at Stalingrad between July and November. In contrast, the Germans lost 156,000 soldiers throughout the entirety of the Battle for France. The Germans "sucked in units" from their flanks in order to maintain the casualties incurred by the attritional struggle in the city, leaving only the frail allied armies to protect them. This shows how the German high command was unable to foresee probable long-term operational effects. They established the weakness that would be exploited by Operation Uranus by isolating the unprepared and less capable Italian, Romanian, and Hungarian forces to defend the northern and southern flanks of the Stalingrad salient. Second, this attrition-based conflict provided General Zhukov enough time to assemble a force that might encircle the Germans. Stalin urged Zhukov to think about launching a less ambitious counteroffensive early on because he was worried about losing Stalingrad. Stalin, in contrast to Hitler, was open to listening to his generals and gave Zhukov time to carry out his strategy while directing General Chuikov to fight as long as possible. Zhukov had gathered a force of nearly a million troops, armed with artillery, tanks, and aircraft by the time Operation Uranus began. In contrast, as they devoted resources to Stalingrad, the German force gradually became smaller. This illustrates how the operational perspective of the German command was constrained, especially as compared to the Soviet command, and how this helped to create the circumstances for Operation Uranus's success. Therefore, the German command's incapacity was crucial.

Right up until they launched their attack, the Soviets kept their counteroffensive's operational security (the secret of intended military activities) in tact. In contrast, German overconfidence resulted in a compromise of their operational security and prevented them from taking advantage of possibilities to damage Soviet operational security. The Stavka (Soviet military high command) chose to begin actions that would become known as the winter campaign after realising that the Germans weren't ready for offensive operations during the winter of 1942. The Soviets discovered two potential German weaknesses during this campaign. Zhukov claims that firstly, "[The Germans] failed to identify preparations for the main counter-offensive at Stalingrad where there were field, 1 tank, and 4 air armies." Zhukov reasoned that he could increase his force concentration while still maintaining operational security. Second, Zhukov recognised the vulnerability of the Romanian and Italian troops that were allies of the Germans. According to him, the satellite forces were less well-equipped, less skilled, and less effective than the Germans. even when defending. Zhukov's plan of attacking the flanks was solidified by the discovery of a thin line of satellite troops guarding the German flank. He had discovered a hole in German operational security that he might exploit. Fixing the adversary, keeping them distracted, and limiting their options for action are essential components of successful operations. The actual fight in Stalingrad, which entirely diverted Paulus's attention in this situation, was the diversion. Paulus focused on the conflict instead of the Russian counteroffensive because he thought he needed one more push to overcome the Soviets' resistance. The inadequately armed Romanian Third Army guarding Stalingrad's northern flank was quickly surprised and overrun by the Russian forces due to Paulus' neglect of the flanks. This indicates the Soviet Union's skill in upholding operational security, spotting the enemy's weak spot, and the effect these things had on their ability to win the conflict.

Despite this, German arrogance rather than Soviet victories was the cause of Operation Uranus's surprise. One instance of this is when intelligence personnel from the Sixth Army saw unusual troop movements on the flanks, such as an increase in the quantity of Don crossings in the Russian rear. They informed the army command of these moves, but they were not taken seriously. German haughtiness that they were superior to the Slavs, whom they believed to be racially superior, was the cause of this lack of belief. According to Beevor, "the worst error German leaders committed was to have misjudged 'Ivan,' the average Red Army soldier." Beevor would have been more correct, though, if he had concentrated on how much the Germans underestimated Russian leaders as opposed to infantry. Given the circumstances in Stalingrad, the German command didn't think the Red Army leadership was capable of mounting a significant counteroffensive. The Germans' hubris prevented them from acting on their own intelligence, which effectively increased Soviet operational security. They weren't ready for the Soviet counterattack as a result.

.

Despite the Soviets' success in undermining German operational security and maintaining their own through efficient fixing operations, the Germans' defeat was largely due to their overconfidence, which prevented them from taking advantage of opportunities to foresee the surprise of the counterattack.

German generals from the conflict frequently assert that the incapability of the Romanian, Italian, and Hungarian troops to hold their positions was caused by an external influence. This claim has some validity because the satellite allies lacked the equipment and motivation to perform as well as the German army did. The Romanians "were underequipped and had previously demonstrated themselves inferior to the average Russian infantry," according to Clark. In order to meet Hitler's requests for more soldiers, many of these troops—2,000 of them—were not even trained as soldiers. Instead, they were enlisted as civilian felons who had been convicted of rape, theft, or murder. Additionally, the satellite forces lacked the drive necessary to mount a valiant defence against the terrifying and highly determined Red Army. The Italian unit, which surrendered to the Soviets without exchanging fire, is an illustration of this lack of motivation. We did not fire back because we thought it would be a mistake, a member of this unit said when asked why they did not fight back. The troops guarding the flank lacked both ability and motivation, which made it simple for the Soviets to encircle the Sixth Army and all but guarantee the German defeat.

The prior argument, however, ignores the fact that the Germans were accountable for failing to supervise or supply these units with supplies while being aware of their inadequacies. The basis of this argument is also constrained by the warped viewpoint of German generals who sought to shift the blame. There was just one anti-tank company, outfitted with antiquated 37-mm guns, for each Romanian division. General Dumitrescu made several requests, but the Germans only provided six German 75-mm guns per division. This wasn't enough to take on the Soviet forces, who sent 13,500 heavy artillery guns and utilised 894 tanks in their counteroffensive. Furthermore, the Wehrmacht's overinvestment in Stalingrad contributed significantly to the isolation of the German allies. Hitler saved money elsewhere by maintaining his satellite troops to line the flanks because he wanted to concentrate the largest German force feasible in the capital. Thus, Hitler and Paulus's lack of vision more than the satellite forces' weakness was to blame for the weakness on Stalingrad's flanks. Thus, the Sixth Army's defeat was caused by the German command's negligence, which allowed for the encirclement of the army.

In conclusion, the Soviet attempt to keep Operation Uranus a surprise and to keep the Germans focused on Stalingrad had a significant role in the encirclement of the Sixth Army. However, the German mistakes—like the paucity of aid given to their satellite armies or the haughtiness of their command in ignoring intelligence pointing to a Soviet counteroffensive—were more significant contributors to their inability to resist encirclement.

While it is obvious that Soviet victories and outside events had an impact on the German defeat at the Battle of Stalingrad, German mistakes had a larger impact. The three main causes of these failures—the Wehrmacht's tactical mistakes, the German command's arrogance and incompetence, and Hitler's indecisiveness—had various effects. Even if the German command's inefficiency was the primary cause of the Russian counteroffensive's surprise, it had less of an impact on Germany's defeat than the Wehrmacht's tactical errors or Hitler's indecision. Only because the German attack had been unable to capture Stalingrad was a Soviet counteroffensive feasible. This was caused by the German error of abandoning their effective blitzkrieg approach, as was stated in section 1 of this article, and Hitler's lack of operational focus on either Stalingrad or the Caucasus, which prevented him from focusing force on either target. Therefore, German missteps, particularly their tactical errors and Hitler's indecision, contributed significantly to the German defeat in the Battle of Stalingrad.

Due to the modest percentage of Soviet sources used compared to Western sources, this investigation's goal of filling the research gap described in the introduction was somewhat constrained. First of all, maybe as a result of Soviet censorship, it was challenging to locate Soviet primary materials. In an effort to overcome this restriction, Beevor's book on Stalingrad, which was produced in 1998 following the opening of Soviet archives in 1991, was utilised as the primary source. Beevor used official accounts to take advantage of his access to the Soviet archives by Soviet military officers and generals. Beevor has nonetheless received criticism for his inaccurate translation of these Soviet accounts. Second, the majority of the secondary materials used were published in English by Western historians, whose views on the Cold War may have influenced their arguments. Therefore, even though this essay made an effort to integrate Soviet perspectives, a Western lens was consistently present. As a result, while this work does address the research gap, it does not fully answer the research topic.

Beevor, Antony. Stalingrad : The Fateful Siege: 1942-1943. Easton Press, 2004. Caddick-Adams, Peter. “Stalingrad: The Crushing of the Reich.” HistoryExtra, BBC, 25 June 2021, historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/stalingrad-the-crushing-of-the-reich/.Accessed 21 Oct. 2021.

Clark, Alan. Barbarossa: the Russian-German Conflict 1941-45. New American Library, 1966.Hart, Liddle. The Other Side of the Hill. Pan, 1999.

Holmes, Richard. World War II : The Definitive Visual Guide. Dorling Kindersley Limited, 2021.Ian Dear, and Michael Foot. The Oxford Companion to the Second World War. Oxford University Press, 1998.

Jacobi, Derek. Greatest Events of WWII in Colour. Netflix, 2019. Documentary. Accessed 15 July 2021.

Johnson, Frank. Naval War College Information Service for Officers. 2nd ed., vol. 4, U.S. Naval War College Press, 1951, pp. 1–26.

Jones, Michael. Stalingrad : How the Red Army Triumphed. Pen & Sword Military, 2011. Keegan, John. The Second World War. Arrow, 1990.

Ministry Of Defence. The Application of Force : An Introduction to Army Doctrine and the Conduct of Military Operations. The Stationery Office, 2002.

Rumyantsev, Vyacheslav. “Сталинградская битва.”Hrono.info, 2010,

hrono.info/sobyt/1900sob/1942stal.php. Accessed 17 Oct. 2021.

Stone, David. “Stalingrad and the Evolution of Soviet Urban Warfare.”The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, vol. 22, no. 2, 29 May 2009, pp. 195–207.

Sutton, David. “German Defeat/Red Victory: Change and Continuity in Western and Russian Accounts of June-December 1941.” University of Wollongong Thesis Collection 2017, 1 Jan. 2018, ro.uow.edu.au/theses1/301. Accessed 22 Oct. 2021.

Timofeychev, Alexey. “3 Reasons Why the Red Army Won the Battle of Stalingrad.” Russia Beyond, 2 Feb. 2018,

www.rbth.com/history/327480-reasons-why-red-army-won-stalingrad. Accessed 8 Nov. 2021.

WW2 Stats. “Human Losses in World War II, Heeresarzt 10-Day Casualty Reports per Army/Army Group.” Ww2stats.com, 2012,

web.archive.org/web/20130531133930/ww2stats.com/cas_ger_okh_dec42.html. Accessed 15 Oct. 2021.

Žukov Georgij, and Geoffrey Roberts. Marshal of Victory. 1, the WWII Memoirs of General Georgy Zhukov through 1941. Pen and Sword Books, 1974.