Many historians consider the battle of Stalingrad as the turning point of WWII, because it signalled “the time of German victories was over” , as Ferro states. This is due to the fact that Hitler believed that Leningrad and Stalingrad were the “Bolshevik breeding grounds” , and therefore was more important to defeat, then the capital of Russia, Moscow. Furthermore, Stalingrad was marked as the furthest advancement made by the Panzer forces, however they had outstretched their supply lines, limiting their force, and hence led to von Paulus to surrender. Except, not all historians believe that this great battle was the actual turning point in the war, for example, Milward believes that when the Russians had recaptured Rostov-on Don, had “the war had reached a turning point” in WWII and “only made obvious… by the German defeat at Stalingrad” . Therefore even though Milward argues that Stalingrad was not a turning point, many more say it is, and this is because of Germany’s army having been over stretched across land, with inadequate planing by the generals and with the great strategic defences by Zhukov.
The battle of Stalingrad has various significance to different people. For example, Zhukov views it as “the beginning of the expulsion of enemy forces” . This signifies that Zhukov believes that it was a campaign fiercely fought and that it was a battle that is important to his nation as it was a harsh conflict. Manstein has also similar views about this particular campaign as he has written in his own memoirs, “Germanic army in this campaign could no longer count on winning the final victory” . This indicates that Manstein accepts the defeat of the battle and that held impact upon the rest of World War Two. Other historians such as Condon disagree that Stalingrad as the turning point of WWII, and insist it was Kursk, since there was the “biggest tank battle of the Second World War” , however he does label Stalingrad as the “Great Patriotic War” . Moreover,...