OT:US don't qualify for EU membership, don't spank children, WW2 history.

[oleg]

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
I stand corrected it was 6th Army. But the documents are public now, go check the Archives. The Soviet government was putting the pieces in place for a negotiated peace. When the British found out they came screaming to Washington.

Hmm, can you please give a link ? After all, Comic Ali statements are public documents now

Battle of Stalingrad was an important moment in WWII, but its fall could not imperill USSR in a bit. I was born not far from Stalingrad (300 miles up the Volga river). There is NOTHING to the east from Stalingrad. Just Kazakh steppe with the population density of Australia Nothern Territories. There is no reason whatsoever to surrender.

Just take it into perspective: suppose Germany build a bridge to US or dry out Atlantic. In the first year, US heroicaly defends Washington and New York but lose Boston and Atlanta. Next year, Germany changes the direction, capture Atlanta and attack Saint Louis (sp. sorry.) The rational is of course to cut off the Texas oil fields. Once Germans crosses Mississipi, American President sidently surrende all states East from the river and moves to LA. Does it makes any sense whatsoever ???

BTW, Caspian oil was extremely important for 3rd Reich but not as much as to USSR. Tatarstan and Bashkirstan oil was at plenty. Loss of Stalingrad would have a very small effect on the Russian economy in 1942.

[ July 27, 2003, 04:17: Message edited by: oleg ]

[Fyron]

The loss of Stalingrad would have had a much more psychological effect on the Russian people, not an economic one.

[oleg]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The loss of Stalingrad would have had a much more psychological effect on the Russian people, not an economic one.

Ohh, why ? Only because it has Stalin name ? Stalingrad by itself was just another ordinarily average city. Nothing compared to Minsk, Kiev or Kharkov. It got its place in the history not because either its capture or heroic defence would be the turning point in the war but because it is the site of the most crushing and painfull defeat of Wermacht. From what I know, the loss of Kiev in August 41 was the worst blow. By the end of 42 loss or recapture of another city become almost routine news. War sucks.

[Fyron]

It was a symbol, thats why.

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by oleg:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
I stand corrected it was 6th Army. But the documents are public now, go check the Archives. The Soviet government was putting the pieces in place for a negotiated peace. When the British found out they came screaming to Washington.

Hmm, can you please give a link ? After all, Comic Ali statements are public documents now

Battle of Stalingrad was an important moment in WWII, but its fall could not imperill USSR in a bit. I was born not far from Stalingrad (300 miles up the Volga river). There is NOTHING to the east from Stalingrad. Just Kazakh steppe with the population density of Australia Nothern Territories. There is no reason whatsoever to surrender.

Just take it into perspective: suppose Germany build a bridge to US or dry out Atlantic. In the first year, US heroicaly defends Washington and New York but lose Boston and Atlanta. Next year, Germany changes the direction, capture Atlanta and attack Saint Louis (sp. sorry.) The rational is of course to cut off the Texas oil fields. Once Germans crosses Mississipi, American President sidently surrende all states East from the river and moves to LA. Does it makes any sense whatsoever ???

BTW, Caspian oil was extremely important for 3rd Reich but not as much as to USSR. Tatarstan and Bashkirstan oil was at plenty. Loss of Stalingrad would have a very small effect on the Russian economy in 1942.

---

Army group south would have crossed and driven into the flank of the soviets massed in front of 6th. With no room to move, it would not have been good for the soviets. Then 6th would have been in position to drive north and attack moscow from the south east as the froces in front of the city drive west. A good general could have made a fight of it, but this was not the issue. Stalin was not secure in Moscow. Saving his government had become more important than winning the war. In the end, the US gave him billions of dollars in aid, so that he would continue the fight. Many of the items sent were valued at pennies on the dollar so that the US people would not realize how much was being sent.

Sorry, the US archives are not on line, but I will look up my notes and forward them.

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
It was a symbol, thats why.

It was a strategic city and a political liability. Had the Germans moved swiftly and bypassed the city, after reducing it of course, the defeat would have been tremendous for the Soviets. The loss of the troops in theater would have been bad, but the loss of the troops in route would have been worse. If the Germans kept moving, it would have been very difficult to mass them. The key point of the theater is that 6th army would have been done in the south, and free to drive on Moscow. Also, it would have appeared to the Soviets that they could not stop the Germans, even after Stalin had given an ultimatum for the city to hold. There is only so much defeat that a nation will stand for, even a communist nation. The party grip on the army did not extend all that far down into the conscript ranks.

A minor point on the battle, it was the Italians that folded and allowed the Soviets to flank 6th to the north, then the Romanians folded in the south. By then the weather did not allow the German air power and mechanized mobility to become a factor. Not to mention that German armor was rotting in pastures while the crews fought as infantry. The Italians and Romanians should have been in the city mopping up while 6th was across the river acting as an anvil for army group south. 6th did actually put pathfinders across the river early on, but the opportunity to cross in mass was allowed to slip away.

[tesco samoa]

The problem with the summer campaigns of 42 were that the objectives were too great for Army Group Centre and Army Group South to complete.

The troops were still recovering from the winter battles. Runstead, Guidarian. Fired. Tank production was still around 400 a month. Now Hitler wished for chassises to be used to mount motors/ fixed guns ( which competed against regular tank chassises ) By summer 42 only 4500 tanks had been built. ( This shows you that the German Govn't underestimated the strenght of the tank and its role ) Russia was building half of that number a month and increasing.

Army Group Centre goal after Stalingrad was to push south.

I guess what i am saying is the the goals set in stone by the okh and hitler were unattainable with the standing army in 42.

Had the city fallen in the month of Novemember The Russian Armies would have been forced to attack the northern and southern flanks earlier.

I believe the outcome would have been the same. As the option of manoverablilty had been removed from the german field commanders. And this is a very important decission to be analyzized while looking at what if's.

The German Military was streched beyond its capacity in 42.