Pick Your 'Grad...

[Louis Epstein]

In WW II Germany's invasion of the USSR bogged down in
long,unsuccessful sieges of Stalingrad and Leningrad...
which of these sieges succeeding would have made more
difference overall?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 5/11/2022 9:46 PM, Louis Epstein wrote:
> In WW II Germany's invasion of the USSR bogged down in
> long,unsuccessful sieges of Stalingrad and Leningrad...
> which of these sieges succeeding would have made more
> difference overall?
>

I suspect it would be Leningrad. Free up troops for redeployment. Even
if the Germans had taken Stalingrad I'm not sure it would have really
done them that much good. Already too far east for their logistics tail
possibly.


--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

[The Horny Goat]

On Thu, 12 May 2022 07:51:06 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 5/11/2022 9:46 PM, Louis Epstein wrote:
>> In WW II Germany's invasion of the USSR bogged down in
>> long,unsuccessful sieges of Stalingrad and Leningrad...
>> which of these sieges succeeding would have made more
>> difference overall?
>>
>I suspect it would be Leningrad. Free up troops for redeployment. Even
>if the Germans had taken Stalingrad I'm not sure it would have really
>done them that much good. Already too far east for their logistics tail
>possibly.

Complete agreement here PARTICULARLY as a German capture of Leningrad
would have encouraged Finland to move east to the sea which would
greatly aid German logistics and make Scandanavia a quiet front for
them (i.e. no more PQ17 type battles)

[pyotr filipivich]

Louis Epstein <l...@top.put.com> on Thu, 12 May 2022 04:46:37 -0000
(UTC) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:

>In WW II Germany's invasion of the USSR bogged down in
>long,unsuccessful sieges of Stalingrad and Leningrad...
>which of these sieges succeeding would have made more
>difference overall?

My understanding is that Stalingrad was suppose to be a feint in
that direction by the Sixth Army, instead it got bogged down in trying
to take the and was destroyed.

Keeping the 6th out of Stalingrad would have kept it intact, and
not diverted resources from the push toward the oil fields. (Whether
that was actually possible is another question.)


--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

[The Horny Goat]

On Thu, 12 May 2022 08:57:56 -0700, pyotr filipivich
<ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>Louis Epstein <l...@top.put.com> on Thu, 12 May 2022 04:46:37 -0000
>(UTC) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>In WW II Germany's invasion of the USSR bogged down in
>>long,unsuccessful sieges of Stalingrad and Leningrad...
>>which of these sieges succeeding would have made more
>>difference overall?
>
> My understanding is that Stalingrad was suppose to be a feint in
>that direction by the Sixth Army, instead it got bogged down in trying
>to take the and was destroyed.
>
> Keeping the 6th out of Stalingrad would have kept it intact, and
>not diverted resources from the push toward the oil fields. (Whether
>that was actually possible is another question.)
>
>

The thrust towards the oil fields was only about denying them to the
Soviets - but that alone would have been a huge step towards ultimate
victory.

Realistically simply capturing the oil fields doesn't help German oil
production since without the infrastructure to extract, refine and
transport the refined product to German industry it doesn't directly
aid the Nazi cause. Getting all that done is OPTIMISTICALLY not likely
to happen for 18-24 months after the capture of the fields.

On the other hand, if the Germans DO advance to the Turkish border in
the Caucasus that greatly increases the odds of Turkey entering the
Axis and THAT would have knock on effects far beyond your question.
(Though logistically the Turkish rail network is insufficient to
supply either an infrantry or armored army from the southern Turkish
border to a position either able to attack Kuwait (where you'd have
the same situation with Kuwaiti as Caucasian oil with respect to
refining etc) or through Lebanon and Palestine to the Suez canal.
(Note that Ethiopia was recaptured by the British in early 1941 before
the German invasion of Russia)

[pyotr filipivich]

The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> on Thu, 12 May 2022 22:47:36 -0700

typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>On Thu, 12 May 2022 08:57:56 -0700, pyotr filipivich
><ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>Louis Epstein <l...@top.put.com> on Thu, 12 May 2022 04:46:37 -0000
>>(UTC) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>>In WW II Germany's invasion of the USSR bogged down in
>>>long,unsuccessful sieges of Stalingrad and Leningrad...
>>>which of these sieges succeeding would have made more
>>>difference overall?
>>
>> My understanding is that Stalingrad was suppose to be a feint in
>>that direction by the Sixth Army, instead it got bogged down in trying
>>to take the and was destroyed.
>>
>> Keeping the 6th out of Stalingrad would have kept it intact, and
>>not diverted resources from the push toward the oil fields. (Whether
>>that was actually possible is another question.)
>>
>>
>The thrust towards the oil fields was only about denying them to the
>Soviets - but that alone would have been a huge step towards ultimate
>victory.
>
>Realistically simply capturing the oil fields doesn't help German oil
>production since without the infrastructure to extract, refine and
>transport the refined product to German industry it doesn't directly
>aid the Nazi cause. Getting all that done is OPTIMISTICALLY not likely
>to happen for 18-24 months after the capture of the fields.

Realistically "Bah, Nazi science sneers at your 'realistically'."

As you said : denying the oil to the soviets is a win. Getting it
into production and supplying the Reich is a bigger win.

>
>On the other hand, if the Germans DO advance to the Turkish border in
>the Caucasus that greatly increases the odds of Turkey entering the
>Axis and THAT would have knock on effects far beyond your question.
>(Though logistically the Turkish rail network is insufficient to
>supply either an infrantry or armored army from the southern Turkish
>border to a position either able to attack Kuwait (where you'd have
>the same situation with Kuwaiti as Caucasian oil with respect to
>refining etc) or through Lebanon and Palestine to the Suez canal.
>(Note that Ethiopia was recaptured by the British in early 1941 before
>the German invasion of Russia)

I'm not sure what advantage joining the Axis might provide Turkey.
A possibility of regaining some of the former Ottoman territories, the
islands in the Agean, maybe.

[Rich Rostrom]

On 5/11/22 11:46 PM, Louis Epstein wrote:
> In WW II Germany's invasion of the USSR bogged down in
> long,unsuccessful sieges of Stalingrad and Leningrad...

The siege of Leningrad was a deliberate choice by Hitler, who
wanted to avoid street fighting. The German (and Finnish)
forces partially blockaded the city. The Finns refused to go
any further, and Hitler figured the city's defenses would collapse
from starvation and isolation.

Stalingrad was not a siege: it was a series of assaults within
the city (which succeeded; by mid-November the Soviets held only a
few small pockets in the city west of the Volga), followed by
maneuver battles west and south of the city, in which the Soviets
broke Axis lines on either side and encircled the city, then
defeated the German relief effort.

> which of these sieges succeeding would have made more
> difference overall?

The fall of Leningrad would have secured the Baltic as an
Axis lake.

At Stalingrad, the Germans needed to defeat the Soviet
counterattack. Had this been achieved, it would have
deprived the Soviets of their first major victory of
the war, averted a lot of German casualties, and left
the Germans in control of a lot of additional Soviet
territory.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

[Rich Rostrom]

On 5/12/22 10:57 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> My understanding is that Stalingrad was suppose to be a feint in
> that direction by the Sixth Army, instead it got bogged down in trying
> to take the and was destroyed.

In summer 1942, the Germans drove east to the Don (Army Group B:
II Army, IV Panzer Army, VI Army) and southeast toward the Caucasus
(Army Group A: I Panzer Army, XVII Army, XI Army). At the end of July,
Hitler transferred IV Panzer to AG A, moving across the rear of VI
Army, which was left to advance on Stalingrad and screen it, while
IV Panzer advanced to the south.

Then Hitler decided that taking "Stalin City" would be a decisive
psychological blow. He sent IV Panzer back to join VI Army for
the brutal street fight in the city, which lasted from mid-September
to mid-November.

It's generally thought that the Germans could have taken Stalingrad
on the march in early August.

[Rich Rostrom]

On 5/13/22 2:06 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> I'm not sure what advantage joining the Axis might provide Turkey.

Not getting invaded by Germany (and presumably overrun,
if the situation is as described).

[The Horny Goat]

On Sun, 22 May 2022 18:45:53 -0500, Rich Rostrom
<rros...@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>At Stalingrad, the Germans needed to defeat the Soviet
>counterattack. Had this been achieved, it would have
>deprived the Soviets of their first major victory of
>the war, averted a lot of German casualties, and left
>the Germans in control of a lot of additional Soviet
>territory.

Very true - at Leningrad the Germans never captured significant
amounts of the outskirts - at Stalingrad at the time of the
counterattack they had roughly 70% of the city.

Completely apples + oranges.

[The Horny Goat]

On Sun, 22 May 2022 19:17:48 -0500, Rich Rostrom
<rros...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 5/13/22 2:06 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>> I'm not sure what advantage joining the Axis might provide Turkey.
>
>Not getting invaded by Germany (and presumably overrun,
>if the situation is as described).

Depends on what you mean by 'overrun' - obviously the Germans would
have wanted to drive south into Syria and Palestine, southeast towards
Kuwait or northeast towards the Caucausus.

The rail network in Turkey was not up to supplying all three at once
and even one would burden their rail capacity to the point that the
Italian navy would have had to be used for food shipments for the
civilian population.

A German win at El Alamein would have made them extremely interested
in a drive south through Syria to take Alexandria and Suez.

The catch of course is that by May 1941 Italy no longer had Abyssinia
which was one of their primary reasons for wanting the Suez canal in
the first place.