WI: Germans take Astrakhan in late 1942...
Vanman
in mid-October 1942 and were able to hold it. This scenario implies the
Caucasus was cut off from the main portion of Russia and hence its main Oil
supply route. Two questions:
1. Was there a Soviet Navy in the Caspian Sea that could have established a
convoy system to offset much of this blockage? Could the western allies
compensate for this loss?
2. Would this have been a serious blow to the Soviet Union and give the
Wehrmacht a chance to win the war against the Soviets?
3. Would Stalin have agreed to a peace that would see him relinquish all
land west of the Urals?
Louis C
> Lets say the Germans isolate Stalingrad, cross the Volga and reach Astrakhan
> in mid-October 1942 and were able to hold it.
The last part is really iffy in winter. The force holding Astrakhan
will be effectively out of supply and beyond supporting range of the
Luftwaffe, I can't see of the Germans can hold on to the city without
capturing Stalingrad, first (and even then...).
> This scenario implies the
> Caucasus was cut off from the main portion of Russia and hence its main Oil
> supply route. Two questions:
>
> 1. Was there a Soviet Navy in the Caspian Sea that could have established a
> convoy system to offset much of this blockage? Could the western allies
> compensate for this loss?
Once the Germans reached the Volga at and north of Stalingrad, the
normal route for Caucasus oil was cut off. The Soviets organized an ad
hoc convoy system through the Caspian Sea. Capacity was low. If
Astrakhan falls, the question becomes one of where the Soviets might
ship the oil to.
In the event, 90% of the oil production was lost when the Soviets
destroyed Baku to prevent it from falling into German hands. Some of
the heavy extraction equipment was moved to the Urals were it was used
on local fields, but conditions at Baku had been relatively primitive
and the sabotage thorough, so essentially capacity never recovered
during the war. The Soviets still managed to make do without it.
> 2. Would this have been a serious blow to the Soviet Union and give the
> Wehrmacht a chance to win the war against the Soviets?
That would certainly have been a blow, especially if the Wehrmacht
still holds Astrakhan (and, presumably, Stalingrad as well by then) by
early 1943. Not enough to make the Soviet Union surrender, though.
> 3. Would Stalin have agreed to a peace that would see him relinquish all
> land west of the Urals?
I don't think so.
In 1941, the military situation was more favorable for the Germans,
and still HItler wanted all land west of the Urals PLUS the
destruction of the Soviet state (and he envisioned using Siberia as
colony anyway) while Stalin was NOT offering "all land west of the
Urals".
Stalin and Hitler were both aggressive and optimistic leaders.
Assuming the military situation was bad enough for Stalin to accept
such a peace, Hitler wouldn't be offering such "lenient" terms in the
first place. Conversely, in early 1943 when the Soviets approached the
Germans for peace talks - probably not all that sincerely, but we'll
never know - it seems that their offer was a return to the pre-
Barbarossa borders whereas Hitler certainly intended to hold on to the
Ukraine and other occupied Soviet territory later than that. I can't
imagine a situation where they could both agree about satisfactory
peace terms.
LC
Alan
> If Astrakhan falls, the question becomes one of where the Soviets
> might ship the oil to.
According to Wiki {yes I know, not the best of sources} the Ural River
is now navigable to barges at least as far as Uralsk {now Oral}. I
don't know if it was navigable then, or, if it was, if the transport
being used to move oil to Astrakhan could have used it. Uralsk/Oral
was/is on one of the major east/west rail lines.
Alan
Alan Meyer
> ...
> Stalin and Hitler were both aggressive and optimistic leaders.
I would have said that about Hitler, but I think of Stalin as
defensive and pessimistic. He trusted no one. He feared everyone
and everything.
However, even having said that, I still agree with your conclusion
that Stalin would not have given in. What would be left to him if
he did? Like Hitler, he had committed serious crimes and damaged
his own country. He might well expect the Russian people to
revenge themselves upon him if he lost the war. For Stalin, as
for Hitler, I think it quickly became a matter of victory or death.
It might have been different if Hitler had been willing to offer
generous terms, but that was not in Hitler's nature. He was
waging what he himself called a "war of annihilation." He gave
no room to Stalin and no option but to fight. After his initial
period of indecision, and especially after a taste of victory at
the battle for Moscow that showed him that fighting was not
totally impossible, I think Stalin became 100% committed.
Alan