Stalingrad?

[Footslogger]

In this movie clip, Nikita Khrushchev says that if Stalingrad fell, that the entire Russian government would collapse.

Is this statement true?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=381Di8Cw0-I

[tocaff]

Nope, it was only a city. The Germans were spent and the Red Army was growing in strength. The almost limitless size of the Soviet Union and it's ability to produce more than the Germans made taking a city of little import.

[wdolson]

Stalingrad was a key city for the transport of oil from Southern Russia. If I remember correctly, Stalingrad was a big rail center.

The Germans switched to the southern strategy in 1942 because they needed the oil from the Caucuses. Stalingrad needed to be taken and held to be able to efficiently move the oil back to Germany.

The Russian war machine was robust enough by late 1942 that the loss of Stalingrad would not have led to the collapse of the entire war effort. However, being able to get oil out of the Caucus oil fields would have helped the German war effort and hurt the Russians. If the Russians had lost their own oil fields, they would have had to import from Iran, which would have hurt them financially as well as caused other problems.

Bill

[Chickenboy]

So, are you guys suggesting that-perhaps-Hollywood exaggerated the importance of the city named in the movie? For drama's sake? [&:] Cuz I for one ain't believing it! It musta been true!

[warspite1]

The fall of the city (or not) cannot of been important. If it was then this man would have volunteered

[tocaff]

It was personal between Hitler and Stalin because of the city's name. Strategic? Yes. Vital to the war effort? Not for the Soviets.

[tigercub]

I am sure the Russian government would not collapse also the Germans were not spent, but after Stalingrad they were...but given time they could have repaired but time they did not have! the city as a transit center was important, what was in the city was a wasteland.

[spence]

Perhaps the intrinsic value of Stalingrad was insufficient to cause a military collapse of the Soviet Union but as a symbol of the regime its value could have been considerably greater.

Stalin's iron hand might not have been enough to protect his person. But for a thick table leg his Nazi antagonist might have gone to meet his maker and exactly what political ramifications ensued is certainly open to some speculation. Stalin's marshals and generals didn't fight for him because they loved him as a brother.

[Lowpe]

Sure, if Stalingrad fell the Russian Govt would have collapsed.

If it fell in winter of 1941.[:)]

[Banzan]

The most "funny" thing about the german southern offensive for oil, ist the far too streched transportation limit. "If" they would have captured undamaged oil fields, getting the oil back to refinerys would have used shitloads of transportation space on a very very thin railroad system. And what would have been the chances to get tankers through the north sea, atlantic, gibraltar and median sea into the black sea without getting sunk by allied ships? Not to menton the russian black sea fleet.

In my opinion, the entire idea was doomed already, before the offensive even started.

[RogerJNeilson]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

So, are you guys suggesting that-perhaps-Hollywood exaggerated the importance of the city named in the movie? For drama's sake? [&:] Cuz I for one ain't believing it! It musta been true!

Since when have the media ever let historical facts get in the way of their creations?

Roger

[miv792]

80% of the oil produced for the war was mined in the Caucasus. If the Germans began the main attack earlier in this direction that the USSR would have collapsed.

Greetings from Russia: P

[crsutton]

Stalingrad was a grinding battle and would have been decimating to Germany whether they won or not. The point is that the Germans were about to lose in Tunisia, the North Atlantic battle would shift dramatically within a few months, and the Japanese had already lost at Midway and were pretty much defeated in the air by 1/43. In a global war, one battle rarely makes a difference. It is a war of attrition and economics and the Axis on a global scale were pretty much done for by the time the battle of Stalingrad was decided. Perhaps they did not know it yet, but they were doomed.

Focusing on Stalingrad in such a manner is similar to folks claiming that the battle of Gettysburg was the decisive battle of the American Civil War and coming up with all sorts of what ifs for a Confederate victory. That is sort of silly since at the very same time General Grant took Vicksburg-effectively cutting the South in half and turning what had been a slow death by strangulation into a much faster process. Gettysburg was a tactical battle which offered very little strategic gain to the Confederacy while Vicksburg sealed the South's fate. Stalingrad should be looked at in the same vein. It would have set the Russians back but for the Axis the war was already lost. In a sustained conflict, it all boils down to economics.

My two cents, anyways.[;)]

[rockmedic109]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Stalingrad was a grinding battle and would have been decimating to Germany whether they won or not. The point is that the Germans were about to lose in Tunisia, the North Atlantic battle would shift dramatically within a few months, and the Japanese had already lost at Midway and were pretty much defeated in the air by 1/43. In a global war, one battle rarely makes a difference. It is a war of attrition and economics and the Axis on a global scale were pretty much done for by the time the battle of Stalingrad was decided. Perhaps they did not know it yet, but they were doomed.

Focusing on Stalingrad in such a manner is similar to folks claiming that the battle of Gettysburg was the decisive battle of the American Civil War and coming up with all sorts of what ifs for a Confederate victory. That is sort of silly since at the very same time General Grant took Vicksburg-effectively cutting the South in half and turning what had been a slow death by strangulation into a much faster process. Gettysburg was a tactical battle which offered very little strategic gain to the Confederacy while Vicksburg sealed the South's fate. Stalingrad should be looked at in the same vein. It would have set the Russians back but for the Axis the war was already lost. In a sustained conflict, it all boils down to economics.

My two cents, anyways.[;)]

I think your two cents gave a return of about $100. With that kind of return you need to be a financial advisor.

Or teach history to the Hollywood cowd that never lets reality get in the way of a bad story.

[geofflambert]

The loss of virtually the entire 6th army was pretty significant.

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

The loss of virtually the entire 6th army was pretty significant.

Not to mention the loss of just about every army of Germany's satelite partners. Not that they were that good to begin with, but their loss just put more strain on German resources.

[wdolson]

I have heard many times that a US loss at Midway or Guadalcanal would have lost the war for the US. It really isn't true. Either would have been a heavy blow to morale, but as long as the Americans were willing to fight, the war was lost for Japan. Their only route to victory was the US giving up and a major loss like Midway or Guadalcanal would have likely made Americans want to double down on the Pacific rather than give up.

The critical point for the USSR was late 1941. Stalin had been trying to get people to fight for communism with little success and the Germans were at the gates of Moscow. Several things happened fairly close together which turned the tide. The Germans began to run out of supply and the Russian winter was far more severe than they expected. They were slow to get enough winter clothing to their troops. Secondly a pro-communist German working in Tokyo with connections in the German embassy found out that Japan was looking eastward and southward, not towards Soviet Mongolia. The first messages from Richard Sorge about the imminent German invasion in July 1941 were ignored by Stalin, but when word came in November 1941 that the Japanese were not interested in another war with the Soviets, Stalin shifted a bunch of divisions from the Far East to Moscow in time to stop the Germans in their tracks.

Another factor was Stalin realized that Russians would fight for Mother Russia if not Communism and changed propaganda tracks to focus on the threat to the homeland. Lastly Stalin decided to stay in Moscow and ride out his fate in the Kremlin whether the Germans succeeded or not. Tying his fate to the USSR's endeared him more than anything else he had done as a leader.

These factors changed the USSR's population towards the war effort like never before. Many factories had been relocated deep in Soviet territory which meant that while there was a production glitch while these factories got going. Once they did get going, victory was inevitable.

Stalingrad was a huge loss for Germany. They lost an entire army and their entire southern force was left reeling. The stand there proved to the Soviet public that the Red Army had bite and was not going to fold again. A loss at Stalingrad for the USSR would have been another hard lesson, but it would have just delayed the inevitable. Most of the Caucus oil fields lay further east from Stalingrad. The Germans needed Stalingrad to move the oil back home, though as Banzan pointed out, the rail network was already at max capacity moving troops and supplies. The only way to move the oil back to Germany was by rail and the extra capacity was not there.

The problem with controlling Stalingrad alone was the Germans held almost no oil fields. Most of the Russian oil was still in Russian hands and the Germans would have had to fight to get them away from the Russians. The deeper Germany went into Russia the longer their supply chains got and the shorter Russian supply lines got. During the battle of Stalingrad there are stories of tanks rolling out of the tank factory there and directly into combat. Sometimes with no paint.

The USSR did have a supply line through Iran during that period. If the their domestic oil supply was damaged, they could have supplemented with Iranian oil. The USSR had other options, Germany didn't.

Though I'm not sure where the Soviet refineries were. That's a critical part of the war nobody ever seems to talk about. Germany had the extra refining capacity because they were importing quite a bit of oil from the USSR before they started the war. If the Germans had been able to capture refineries intact in the USSR that would have been a huge boon, but it would have been unlikely. Refineries are easy to destroy, especially when you have combat engineers and a willingness to scorch the earth before retreating.

Bill

[rustysi]

Another facet of the German defeat at Stalingrad was the decision of the U.S. to only raise just over 100 divisions for the Army. Prior to Germany's defeat it was thought that it should be 208 divisons (IIRC). Once the U.S. realized the Soviets would not fold they adopted the former figure, thus freeing up manpower for production, and that production for its Allies. So, the defeat had repercussions far beyond the battlefield.

[mind_messing]

We're forgetting the impact that the fall of Stalingrad would have on Russian morale and internal politics.

1941 had been an absolute disaster for the Russians, and 1942 hadn't exactly been the annus mirabilis either. Leningrad was still under siege and despite the gains made around Rzhev, the Germans had still managed to come up trumps at 2nd Kharhov. A great deal of the Soviet Union was still under German/Axis occupation.

Stalin was throwing the kitchen sink into defending the city with his name. If it had fallen, it's easy to see that a sense of defeatism could have crept into the Soviet High Command - they'd thrown the Germans back from Moscow, but the Germans had bounced back and Case Blau looked like it was going to be 1941 all over again.

Stalin knew that the GPW was a fight for his own life, let alone anything else, so the most likely scenario would be a coup that puts him out of the picture and sends overtures of terms to the Germans allowing the Soviets to cut their losses and run for the Urals to bide their time.

Khrushchev, probably more than any other Soviet figure, was ideally placed to judge both the military and the political situation during the Battle of Stalingrad. If he says that the Soviet Union would have collapsed if the city had fallen, I'd be inclined to take his word for it. Granted - with a pinch of salt: it does his reputation and ego no harm to be known to have been involved in the battle that decided the fate of the Soviet Union.

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

We're forgetting the impact that the fall of Stalingrad would have on Russian morale and internal politics.

1941 had been an absolute disaster for the Russians, and 1942 hadn't exactly been the annus mirabilis either. Leningrad was still under siege and despite the gains made around Rzhev, the Germans had still managed to come up trumps at 2nd Kharhov. A great deal of the Soviet Union was still under German/Axis occupation.

Stalin was throwing the kitchen sink into defending the city with his name. If it had fallen, it's easy to see that a sense of defeatism could have crept into the Soviet High Command - they'd thrown the Germans back from Moscow, but the Germans had bounced back and Case Blau looked like it was going to be 1941 all over again.

Stalin knew that the GPW was a fight for his own life, let alone anything else, so the most likely scenario would be a coup that puts him out of the picture and sends overtures of terms to the Germans allowing the Soviets to cut their losses and run for the Urals to bide their time.

Khrushchev, probably more than any other Soviet figure, was ideally placed to judge both the military and the political situation during the Battle of Stalingrad. If he says that the Soviet Union would have collapsed if the city had fallen, I'd be inclined to take his word for it. Granted - with a pinch of salt: it does his reputation and ego no harm to be known to have been involved in the battle that decided the fate of the Soviet Union.

All good points, but I'm just not sure the Soviets would have folded upon losing the battle. After all even if they had lost the city they still put a hurtin' on the German war machine. There was still the idological battle to consider, Nazism vs. Communism. Just MHO.