The Battle of Stalingrad

[CIVPhilzilla]

I think Stalingrad as said was more of a symbolic victory. Both sides were slas will fight tooth to nail and not stop until you leave tughtered in the hell on earth, but it again shows you do not invade Russia. Maybe future leaders looking to conquer the world should look at the mistake of Napoleon and Hitler.


To go with this topic I just want to add some great Stalin quotes.

"In the Soviet army it takes more courage to retreat than advance."

"Death solves all problems - no man, no problem."

"One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic."

"History shows that there are no invincible armies. "

 

[fing0lfin]

To fing0lfin

Russian never surrender! The history many times has confirmed it.
Napoleon has taken Moscow, but has been crushed!

Moscow taken by Napeleon and Stalingrad can't be compared. The Russians left Moscow. It was a tactic, as the history showed very good tactic. And the previoous history can't be compared with WW2. Just because the numbers...So many Russians, Germans, Poles and etc. were killed in this war.
I agree with you that Russians are tough people, but i still think that if they have lost Stalingrad, they would have lost some of their faith. In ww2 the morale and the motivation of the soldiers still played a big role.

 

[Komandante]

Moscow taken by Napeleon and Stalingrad can't be compared. The Russians left Moscow. It was a tactic, as the history showed very good tactic. And the previoous history can't be compared with WW2. Just because the numbers...So many Russians, Germans, Poles and etc. were killed in this war.
I agree with you that Russians are tough people, but i still think that if they have lost Stalingrad, they would have lost some of their faith. In ww2 the morale and the motivation of the soldiers still played a big role.

However, WELL lost such important cities as: Kiev, Minsk, Sevastopol - resistance it became only stronger.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

Thats true but Stalingrad had greater importance than those cities firstly becuase it bore Stalin's name and secondly becuase the Soviets put a huge effort into holding the city, unlike the other ones you mentioned, so it would have been a great blow to their morale.

 

[Ukas]

Even though propaganda office tried it's best to personify the Soviet resistance to Stalin's character, I think that folks found their everyday resources from somewhere else. Huge effort was put to Stalingrad because it was strategically interesting and defendable location - if to retreat, next line of defence would have been again much further inland.

By then the Soviets were used to get beaten, but they knew, unlike Hitler - that conquering Russia is impossible, because it is just too large.

 

[fing0lfin]

However, WELL lost such important cities as: Kiev, Minsk, Sevastopol - resistance it became only stronger.

Yes, but Stalingrad was the last large city, suitable for deffence. With Stalingrad the land where lived most of the Russians ends. After Stalingrad there are more wildness and barren than cities.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

Hitler was a fool for attacking "Sweep North" as I've heard it called. He should have just put most of his forces in AGC (Army Group Centre) and smashed into Moscow, it could have ended, or severely damaged the Russian chain of command and may have even caused the Russians to surrender.

I grant you that there would have been merciless fighting, even more so than in Stalingrad, but it was tactically a much better plan.

In creating that massive bulge in the southern part of their line, the Germans were inviting the Russians to launch a counter-offensive and seal off the advance elements of AGS (Army Group South) in a giant killing field, where they could pound the h*ll out of them with artillery or just wait and starve them out. (Which the Russians obviously realized, because that's what they did).

 

[Andu Indorin]

The definition of "won the battle of Stalingrad" is still somewhat problematic. Had the successfully overrun the city at the outset of the battle, the strategic situation on the southern front would have been quite different. But once the Soviet's had built up their forces for Operation Uranus, the value of capturing of Stalingrad becomes somewhat more questionable to the overall strategic situation. Perhaps with Stalingrad in German hands would have allowed a more effective counterattack to the Soviet assault. And then again, maybe not. Iirc, it was during the battle of Stalingrad that the Soviet's were able to achieve parity in the air, at least on the front where the fighting was the most critical, so something of a turning point.

But I've long been of the opinion the Germany's best chance to defeat the Soviet Union was squandered in September of 1941 when the Germans did not press on to Moscow falling the battle of Smolensk. This is partly based on the speculation that by 1941, the Soviet Union's economy had become so bureaucratically centralized that the fall of Moscow might have had a devastating, widespread effect on military production, in addition to the major disruption of the Soviet rail net. ... But since Moscow never fell, it can only be speculation.

 

[nonconformist]

I might just add that propagada was everything.
This led to one of them most ingenious coups of WWII.

When the Wehrmacht were miles outside of Moscow, the city could haqve been in chaos, and in complete turmoil.

Instead, Stalin ordered that, as usual, the parade for the October Revolution should take place.

And it did! Divisons marched through Red Square in Moscow, but this time, not in parade uniform, but in combat uniform, and fully arfmed.
As the crowd were cheering, the marched straight through Moscow, and straight onto the front line!

 

[Ukas]

True, but now we get to different levels of propaganda.

Parade through Moscow was intented to reassure people, that there are enough soldiers to fend off the Germans.

However, message "Keep the city because it bores the name of our leader!" tells another thing. People are usually able to recognize what is needfull and reasonable and what is just pompous. The Soviets were used to following orders and self-sacrifice, and would have fought well without major propaganda effort.

You can't eat propaganda. You can't shoot with propaganda. Your tanks will not move with propaganda. Propaganda doesn't replace good line of defence.

In Stalingrad the question was more about a good place to defend and resources, such as grain, oil, industry than a city which bore Stalin's name.

Besides, the Soviets had already lost at least one big city named after Stalin to the Germans, Stalino. (Now known as Donetsk).

 

[Komandante]

Yes, but Stalingrad was the last large city, suitable for deffence. With Stalingrad the land where lived most of the Russians ends. After Stalingrad there are more wildness and barren than cities.

Glance at the map OF THE USSR or Russia, you will sweep, that is further the Urals, and this many industrial multi-Lealionic it is municipal, where entire western industry was transported!

 

[FriendlyFire]

I might just add that propagada was everything.
This led to one of them most ingenious coups of WWII.

When the Wehrmacht were miles outside of Moscow, the city could haqve been in chaos, and in complete turmoil.

Instead, Stalin ordered that, as usual, the parade for the October Revolution should take place.

And it did! Divisons marched through Red Square in Moscow, but this time, not in parade uniform, but in combat uniform, and fully arfmed.
As the crowd were cheering, the marched straight through Moscow, and straight onto the front line!

And 1.5 Million of them died saving the capitol

 

[Ukas]

And 1.5 Million of them died saving the capitol

So, what's your point? Shouldn't they have defended the capital or?

 

[FriendlyFire]

So, what's your point? Shouldn't they have defended the capital or?

It was an extremely close fight.

Local milita battaltions made up of conscripted civilians were given some 6hours training before being thrown against the battleharderned Germans.

Starlin staying in the capitol: responsible for the victory ? of course not

- Coldest winter for almost 50 years
- Raspin came early by almost a month
- Siberia units freed from fighting japanese
- German unequiped for winter fighting

 

[MarkC1]

to those bringing up Kursk as the more important battle... there wouldnt have been a Kursk if the Germans had not lost at Stalingrad

 

[Ukas]

To make my points clear I list them:


1. Battle of Moscow, the Siege of Leningrad, Stalingrad and the Kursk were all important battles, which the Soviets won. Could one battle be named as the turning point? Probably not. Could one battle be named to represent the moment, when the tide was turning? It could, but what's the reason?

If you start to limit things you can make an example:

If Stalingrad was the turning point of a great big World War II, then there must have been a battle which was the turning point of Stalingrad. In this battle there must have been a turning point, let's say a General X's Soviet infantry division gained its objectives. That happened because Colonel Jursinov made a turning point with his good planning. Then one turning point was when one battalion particularly acted well and that was caused by a turning point when Lieutenant Spiljanov ordered his platoon to advance to a factory building even though the German defence was quite determined, and the final turning point was when first soldier, rifleman called Dutchek, charged in the building when Corporal Müller was aiming at him but his rifle jammed.

So, the Germans lost the whole great big war because Corporal Müller's gun misfired?


2. The Soviets would have won the war even if they lost at Stalingrad.


3. Most important point and as so very often disregarded: Germany had reached limits of its capacity to continue war. Due to poor financial administration the country was in a bankrupt condition. Also that they had advanced so far, that supply was highly problematic - a logistical nightmare. The best manpower was used, in 1944 the Germans had to recruit under-aged boys and old men, because everyone else were already enlisted. Hitler had took the control of military from the professionals and his condition was worsening. And the opposition was getting stronger and better all the time.