Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Login ] [ Active ]

Was Stalingrad's role as a turning point exaggerated?

POST REPLY
Log-in to remove advertisement.
Post 29 Jun 2005, 17:08
Carius is right, the Wehrmachts spirit wasn't crushed, at the most it was damaged. It's as simple as this, you can't simply just attack and conquer Moscow. You must first conquer (in my point of view) the other two major cities in Soviet Union; Leningrad and Stalingrad. Perhaps it may be enough to conquer one of them, but to crack a nut you need to crack the shelter surrounding it.
Post 29 Jun 2005, 21:07
The Germans needed to take stalingrad to stop supplies from reaching moscow and to turn it in a base for operations in the caucasus.
Post 30 Jun 2005, 01:18
stalingrad was mostly an ego war. the conquest of the city bearing stalin's name would deal a great morale blow to the soviets. the conquest of stalingrad wasn't necessary to conqeur moscow. the nazis could have laid seige to the city for as long as it took and kept on moving past stalingrad.
Post 30 Jun 2005, 04:03
Hitler was indecisive and split his forces between Stalingrad and Leningrad. Most of the German High Command thought it best to just concentrate on Moscow.

Most of the Red Armies victories were exaggerated.
Post 30 Jun 2005, 05:07
Taking Stalingrad was part of taking Moscow, and Stalingrad was strategic target anyway. Using Volga, Soviets could transport troops and tons of supplies and equipment from the south. Stalingrad also had several factories.

The Battle of Stalingrad was also fought to determine who would control the oil fields of Caucasus.
Post 30 Jun 2005, 06:34
where are you getting this from? that is not true. the city of stalingrad itself didn't serve a critical strategic purpose. stalingrad was a transport route for southern and northern russia but it's nothing that significantly threatened nazi operations. the nazis could have just laid seige and gone right past the city. in fact the original plan did involve to advance past stalingrad straight to the oil fields but hitler intervened and directed that army to stalingrad.
Post 30 Jun 2005, 06:52
Quote:
where are you getting this from? that is not true


World At War: Part Five. Stalingrad.

Quote:
but it's nothing that significantly threatened nazi operations.


Did I say so?

Quote:
in fact the original plan did involve to advance past stalingrad straight to the oil fields but hitler intervened and directed that army to stalingrad.


In case you dont know, Field Marshal Wilhelm Lists army group was fighting in Caucasus at the time when 6th Army was fighting in Stalingrad.
Post 30 Jun 2005, 06:57
world at war... that's a tv documentary correct? i wouldn't base all information on what you see on the television. it's good to read from many sources.

Quote:
In case you dont know, Field Marshal Wilhelm Lists army group was fighting in Caucasus at the time when 6th Army was fighting in Stalingrad.

yes... i did know. the force meant to advance towards the caucasus oil fields was split in two by hitler. it would have been more effective had the army not been split in two and advanced towards the caucasus.
Post 30 Jun 2005, 07:01
I have seen that documentation, and it clearly isnt some history channel documentation if that is what you think.

I have read books conserning Stalingrad.

Quote:
it would have been more effective had the army not been split in two and advanced towards the caucasus.


.....

Army? Do you realise what Army Group means? Army Group is consisted of several armies.
Post 30 Jun 2005, 07:04
Quote:
Army? Do you realise what Army Group means? Army Group is consisted of several armies.
yes... i'm aware of the millions of men, all the tanks, and planes that made up the 3 army groups on the eastern front... quit trying to be so elitist...
Post 30 Jun 2005, 07:08
Quote:
quit trying to be so elitist...


Im not trying to be elitist.
Last edited by Carius on 30 Jun 2005, 07:25, edited 1 time in total.
Post 30 Jun 2005, 07:10
what does that mean?
Post 30 Jun 2005, 07:21
Misspelled.
Post 30 Jun 2005, 07:23
misspelled what? if anything your grammer is bad.
Post 30 Jun 2005, 07:25
For Gods sake.

Quote:
Im now trying to be elitist.


Quote:
Im not trying to be elitist.

_________________
"Ship unable to maneuver... We will fight to the last shell..." Admiral Günther Lütjens.

Image

Last edited by Carius on Thu Jun 30, 2005 6:25 am; edited 1 time in total
[ PM ]
Post 30 Jun 2005, 07:27
so entertaining posting with you.
Post 30 Jun 2005, 19:26
Dont know enough bout it but if i did i would tell you
Tim
Post 30 Jun 2005, 21:16
vazel wrote:
if anything your grammer is bad.
Oh the irony!

If Stalingrad were captured by German forces, they can encircle Moscow from South and have access to oil fields.
Post 01 Jul 2005, 16:39
If the Germans won Stalingrad, this would (as previously said) give them access to the Caucasus and oil. This would probaly bring Turkey into the war. And that would open up another front in the Middle East.
Post 01 Jul 2005, 22:58
I wonder where YOU did learn history vazel?

Just think simple - large cities are often important in several ways.

This is for everyone, I don't think that you should talk so much about "I think that it would have been better to do that" and so on... You simply don't just "take" a city like Stalingrad. You need to take several things in consideration, and where generals failed (Yes I know several simple mistakes were commited) I don't think that uneducated civilians will succeed.

Stalingrad was also important because of the citys name, STALINgrad...
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
[ Top ]