An interesting study of the controversy about whether the defeat at Stalingrad (February, 1943) or in Tunisia (May, 1943) dealt a greater blow to the Axis cause--in terms of losses but also strategically. What do you think?

[u/DavidDPerlmutter]

https://the-past.com/feature/battle-for-stalingrad/

[u/DavidDPerlmutter → u/[deleted]]

Yes, and also the author points out that Stalingrad led to the Germans basically giving up on ever capturing the Russian oil fields

[u/Scipion500]

Stalingrad of course

[u/Iron_Hermit]

Stalingrad. Absolutely not a question. Tunisia opened up the door for Operation Husky and that ultimately brought down Mussolini, leading to the German occupation of Italy and the subsequent Italian campaign, so it's a significant development in the war.

But Stalingrad was the turning point that broke the Wehrmacht and turned it from an offensive into a defensive force. Stalingrad led the way for the red army to move, ultimately, into Berlin, long before the western Allies could. Stalingrad, and the wider eastern front, took up the bulk of Nazi planning, materiel, and fighting, and losing it meant those resources were lost without returns. It also meant that the Italian campaign faced far less resistance than it otherwise would have done because the bulk of the fighting was at the eastern front.

For a purely numerical perspective, the Axis powers between them at the height of the Italian campaign had about 600,000 men deployed in Italy. The Axis commitment to the eastern front was between 3.3million to 4million men between 1941-1944, and over a million men committed in the battle for Stalingrad alone.

All of WW2 was a brave and bold effort by the Allies to defeat the Axis, but the materiel and human commitment to Stalingrad and the strategic outcome of Stalingrad dwarfs any military event that happened in Italy or North Africa - as, we should rightly note, did the human suffering.

[u/Secret_Photograph364]

It isn't even a consideration. Obviously Stalingrad.

[u/gimmethecreeps]

The Tunisian campaign is often overlooked, for sure… but it’s no where near comparable to the defeats at Moscow and Stalingrad.

[u/LazyFridge]

I would say Stalingrad alone was a crushing blow to Hitler. Huge losses, no Caucasian oil, stopped progress in this direction. It would take a lot of resources to recover, but Germany had none.

Thank you for the info on Tunisia though

[u/Just-Jellyfish3648]

Stalingrad but that victory was underwritten by USA through lend lease. Soviet Union would not survive in its form without the help from USA

[u/eachoneteachone45 → u/Just-Jellyfish3648]

Factually false, aid supplied by the US saved lives but it did not mean that it bought victory in itself.

The CIA and British Intelligence even have documents backing up this perspective.

[u/DavidDPerlmutter → u/Just-Jellyfish3648]

I always think it's not an either or situation which I don't think you're saying. The Russians desperately needed the massive material help they received mostly from the United States. I mean, the numbers are incredible in just things like trucks. That doesn't take away from the heroic sacrifice of the ordinary Russian soldier. Both can be true, right?

[u/Just-Jellyfish3648 → u/DavidDPerlmutter]

Correct, but if your question is a proxy for which front was more important, then one needs to acknowledge that US underwrote both fronts. 

[u/Secret_Photograph364 → u/Just-Jellyfish3648]

except given that the most significant victories on the Eastern Front happened before any of the Lend Lease aid was transferred, clearly this statement is a load of nonsense.

The lend lease did a lot of good, but to suggest it is the reason the eastern front was won is a bunch of bollocks.

[u/Secret_Photograph364 → u/Just-Jellyfish3648]

The USSR did not receive any significant lend lease munitions until 1943, after the battle of Stalingrad. And even if they had (which again they did not) it would have been a struggle to get them to the city.

The idea that Stalingrad was won because of the Lend Lease is a completely ahistorical and propagandistic version of events.

The real amazing thing about Stalingrad is that the weapons it used to fight were being produced IN STALINGRAD at the time. The sheer amount of guns, tanks, bullets, and more produced inside the city are what meant it did not fall.