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

[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.

[geoschmo]

I'm sorry Oleg. It's normal for people to feel pride and all in their country. But realistically the war came very close to being a disaster for Russia. Our discussion was not meant to insult you or your country. There is no shame in admiting it. In fact you can be that much more proud that despite how bad things were they prevailed.

The loss of Stalingrad wouldn't actually have been as devastating as the loss of the soldiers defending it. Moscow is the same way. Once you capture the armies and the cities in a war, it's over. You said yourself, there was nothing east of Stalingrad. The Soviet government may not have offically capitulated, but with no more armies or or industrial capacity west of the Kamchatka peninsula, and no effective means of transportation accross the vast middle of the country except for a few easily defended or destroyed roads and railways, they would have been irrelevant to the events of the rest of the war in europe.

Likely there would have been resistance movements and pockets of figthing, as there were in all the occupied countries. But without outside support those are merely distractions.

Geoschmo

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
The German Military was streched beyond its capacity in 42.

That was my original point. If as the supposition stated the French and English had not given Hitler an ultimatum after Poland, would he have continued east and attacked Russia witout conquering western Europe? If he had there would have been no stretching thin. He would have had the full force of his armies undepleted by the battle in France and Belgum, and undiluted by the need to defend his western flank from invasion from England. Not to mention it would have likely come earlier in the course of the war, before the Russians came close to developing the tank technolgy that helped turn the tide.

You could argue that if this happened he would have still had to protect his flank from an invasion from France. But if the western allies had not held firm over Poland who was an ally, why would they have done so over Russia who wasn't?

Geoschmo

[ July 27, 2003, 14:02: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Ruatha]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
I'm sorry Oleg. It's normal for people to feel pride and all in their country. But realistically the war came very close to being a disaster for Russia. Our discussion was not meant to insult you or your country. There is no shame in admiting it. In fact you can be that much more proud that despite how bad things were they prevailed.

The loss of Stalingrad wouldn't actually have been as devastating as the loss of the soldiers defending it. Moscow is the same way. Once you capture the armies and the cities in a war, it's over. You said yourself, there was nothing east of Stalingrad. The Soviet government may not have offically capitulated, but with no more armies or or industrial capacity west of the Kamchatka peninsula, and no effective means of transportation accross the vast middle of the country except for a few easily defended or destroyed roads and railways, they would have been irrelevant to the events of the rest of the war in europe.

Likely there would have been resistance movements and pockets of figthing, as there were in all the occupied countries. But without outside support those are merely distractions.

Geoschmo

Was there any industrial capacity left in Moscow?
I thought it was all moved east in case Moscow would fall.
Wasn't the Soviet army bad trained and under equipped? In that case it wouldn't be very hard for Soviet to fill the ranks again as they had a vast population to recruit from.

So I also belive that even if Stalingrad and Moscow had fallen the Russians would have eventually recaptured it.

(We've fought them all our history until we stopped fighting almost 200 years ago (our Last war was with Russia, and when they set foot on Swedish soil we realized war wasn't for us....) , and they've always retaken everything we've occupied, even if it took them hundreds of years to do it sometimes!)

[ July 27, 2003, 14:48: Message edited by: Ruatha ]