I have a serious intellectual question.

[smc]

Originally Posted by tslust

I probably should've used the word attack instead of victory. What I was meaning was at what point was it no longer for Hitler to achieve victory and should've begin attempts to sit down and negotiate with the Allies and the Soviets.

Stalingrad was a major turning point. That coupled with the failure in the Caucasus campaign (which was going on during the Stalingrad operations) ment that Army Group South was severly weakend also all the gains in the summer had to be abandoned. It still seems almost preposterous that the handful of Red Army survivors and Chuikov's 62nd Army were able to hold out against the entire German 6th Army. A couple of factors come into play. Firstly, Paulus was not the ideal commander. He was the replacement to Walther von Reichenau (who died of a heart attack) who was by many accounts a far better general. Secondly, when the Luftwaffe bombed Stalingrad to ruble, the Germans were not able to bing their decessive weapon (the tank) into the battle. Lastly, the Soviet defenders were fighting out of desperation. Whereas before, they might have withdrawn in the face of overwhelming German attacks. Stalin's "not a step back" order and the use of blocking attachments to shoot anyone trying to retreat gave the Red Army soldiers two grim choices, stand and fight until killed by the Germans or get shot by their own soldiers.

I would have to review the history of the war in some detail to give an opinion on the point at which a rational man (Hitler not being one) would have realized that it was time to sit down and negotiate.

But as for Stalingrad and the general campaign in the Soviet Union: while what you write about Paulus, the inability to bring tanks into the battle, and desperation is all true, as is the "not a step back order," it behooves those of us interested in history's lessons not to forget another factor. Regardless of one's personal view of the Soviet Union, we should not underestimate how powerful a motivator it is to fight for an ideal. At that point, most Russians still believed in the October Revolution (even if only in the abstract, and despite the political terror wrought by Stalin and the failure of the leadership to provide most basic necessities for people) and considered that a Nazi victory would be the equivalent of returning the country to czarist-like rule. There are, according to historians (and not only apologists for Stalin), at least as many, if not quite a few more, stories of amazing determination and heroism on the part of the rag-tag fighters left in Stalingrad and elsewhere on the Eastern Front as there are of the "grim choices" you mention being played out.

I am curious, tslust: what compelled you to pose the initial question in particular (besides "all that talk about Hitler on the political landscape thread")?