Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Forum Index » Historical » Great Patriotic War » Was Stalingrad's role as a turning point exaggerated? [ Go to page ][ Previous ][ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ][ Next ]
 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.
By powerful artillery fire, air strikes and a wave of attacking tanks we're supposed to swiftly crush the enemy. -G.K. Zhukov
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.
 "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe 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.
"Only The Shadow knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men!"
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.  "By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney 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. 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.
"Only The Shadow knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men!"
30 Jun 2005, 06:52
Quote: World At War: Part Five. Stalingrad. Quote: Did I say so? 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. 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: 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. "Only The Shadow knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men!"
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: ..... Army? Do you realise what Army Group means? Army Group is consisted of several armies. 30 Jun 2005, 07:04
Quote: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... "Only The Shadow knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men!"
30 Jun 2005, 07:08
Quote: Im not trying to be elitist. Last edited by Carius on 30 Jun 2005, 07:25, edited 1 time in total.
30 Jun 2005, 07:10
what does that mean?
"Only The Shadow knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men!"
30 Jun 2005, 07:21
Misspelled.
30 Jun 2005, 07:23
misspelled what? if anything your grammer is bad.
"Only The Shadow knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men!"
30 Jun 2005, 07:25
For Gods sake.
Quote: Quote: 30 Jun 2005, 07:27
so entertaining posting with you.
"Only The Shadow knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men!"
30 Jun 2005, 19:26
Dont know enough bout it but if i did i would tell you
30 Jun 2005, 21:16
vazel wrote:Oh the irony! If Stalingrad were captured by German forces, they can encircle Moscow from South and have access to oil fields. 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.
"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney 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... By powerful artillery fire, air strikes and a wave of attacking tanks we're supposed to swiftly crush the enemy. -G.K. Zhukov
|
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
|
||||||
Forum Index » Historical » Great Patriotic War » Was Stalingrad's role as a turning point exaggerated? [ Go to page ][ Previous ][ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ][ Next ]