German victory at Stalingrad

b12ox

Banned
The part of Finland Sovites were fighting for was not alloted. Baltic countries were alloted but it came as a surprise to Hitler. He was faced with this demand just before signing the pact and it was too late to say no, so he stamped it off. Have a look at souhern finland and the baltic countries. thats just round the corner from Leningrad. Russians took the lands to buffer up Leningrad. I dont know how it was with Poland, but Russians eneterd some two weeks after Germans, in a very convenient moment.
 
The part of Finland Sovites were fighting for was not alloted. Baltic countries were alloted but it came as a surprise to Hitler. He was faced with this demand just before signing the pact and it was too late to say no, so he stamped it off. Have a look at souhern finland and the baltic countries. thats just round the corner from Leningrad. Russians took the lands to buffer up Leningrad. I dont know how it was with Poland, but Russians eneterd some two weeks after Germans, in a very convenient moment.

IIRC, according to M-R pact, Germany agreed Finland, Baltic states belonged to Soviet sphere. Initially, Lithuania should have been German, but they surrendered it to Soviets. I do not think Soviets envisioned Germans would achieve the success they achieved in Poland within first two weeks. Hell, not even Germans expected it. It actually caused Soviets to accelerate their action.

Pact also included Romanian province of Besarabia.
 
The part of Finland Sovites were fighting for was not alloted. Baltic countries were alloted but it came as a surprise to Hitler. He was faced with this demand just before signing the pact and it was too late to say no, so he stamped it off. Have a look at souhern finland and the baltic countries. thats just round the corner from Leningrad. Russians took the lands to buffer up Leningrad. I dont know how it was with Poland, but Russians eneterd some two weeks after Germans, in a very convenient moment.

Actually Finland, Estonia, and Latvia, as well as the Curzon Line were all allotted to the USSR in the M-R Pact. The USSR did not however conquer them all easily or simply. Lithuania was actually changed over to the USSR's spheres when it was originally to go to Germany's. The breakdown was in October of 1940 when the USSR demanded the Nazis actually adhere to their own concepts and Hitler decided *this* was the casus belli.
 
IIRC, according to M-R pact, Germany agreed Finland, Baltic states belonged to Soviet sphere. Initially, Lithuania should have been German, but they surrendered it to Soviets. I do not think Soviets envisioned Germans would achieve the success they achieved in Poland within first two weeks. Hell, not even Germans expected it. It actually caused Soviets to accelerate their action.

Pact also included Romanian province of Besarabia.

It wasn't a surrender, it was actually a cynical decision because Lithuania wouldn't yield territory to Germany. It was the Soviet annexation of Bukovina that was the primary divergence between the new Soviet sphere and that allotted by the Pact and the Germans convinced Romania to yield there, the Romanians actually didn't want to do that.
 
A good recent books are "The Stalingrad Trilogy" by Glantz. Only 2 have been published so far, covering start of Blau up to August (1st) and September 19th November (2nd). Both deal with Caucassus offensive as well, part of German actions too often overlooked. Both are standard Glantz doorstoppers but worth the read.
I pulling one of the Glantz book off the shelf and starting it. Thank you for getting me interested eough to start studying the Russian Front
 

b12ox

Banned
Germans were playing a fair game when it comes to the pact with Russia and followed the procedures. Fair as fair a partnership between crooks can be when spoils are waiting to be split. The Germans were tied in the campaign in the west and could not afford to set it on thin ice in the east. Russians on the other hand where doing much to take advantage of the moment. When it comes to Poland, it is unclear when Rusians were to move in to take their spoils. For Hitler it would have been more convenient if the Soviets attacked Poland at the same time or soon after, one or two days later. That would put Soviets on the same level as an aggressor state and partially freed Germans from the guilt. Either that or not move in at all. Then they took Bessarabia when Hitlers army was tied in the west. Bessarabia is next to romanian oil fields which for Germans were crucial. It was possibly an act to show Germans that the Red Army could at any moment move in to take the factories and cut german oil.It was enouh to make Hitler start pounding his head against the wall.The baltic countries and parts of Finland were occupied to shore up Leningrad with more land. Hitler agreed only because he had no choice facing coming war with Poland. The demand caught him naked. He said they would take these lands anyway sooner or later. But now he had to walk his army some 700 or 800 miles to reach Leningrad allowing Sovites plenty time to shore up the city. Inntially the baltic lands were to be left alone. That in turn was not acceptable for Soviets, because Germans could at any moment find an excuse for some german miorities having been beaten or someting like that and the need to help them. They could move in a matter of a few days as they did in most of Europe. Leningrad would be then in sight,just next door, waiting for an immediate assult. The Soviets wouldnt have it. They did everythig to use the M-R pact to strenghten their position against Geman upcoming attack,but in a way that was unclear and burdensome for Hitler. Pact was just a pact A piece of paper, no without the small print. The problems that followed when it was executed made the stelmate unbearable for Hitler. He had gotten what he wanted keeping the east calm for a while, but the Soviets made him pay for that.I am not saying he wouldnt attack Russia if the Soviets played a nice game keeping their hands off Europe altogether, but all these moves in the eastern part of Europe on the part of Russians made him snap in 1941 and not later. The soviets left him no choice. They themselves did what was right to shore up the western borders, mainly the Leningrad area with more land. They had no choice themselves. Sometimes the guilt kind of comes from nowhere. That's why I am buffled Stalin and Molotov were so easily fooled and played into german hands when push came to shove.

Anyway, it has not much to do with Stalingrad and the effects of possible German Win at Stalingrad. The north front was part of Barbarossa meaning part of Blitzkrieg, but it had little merit in terms of land resources. Bypassing it meant possible attack on Germany from the area of the Baltic sea. Germany had already been showered many times by allied bombers, so what the heck. It required strong defence lines, just like the center required strong defence lines. The south was much more of a prize. Ukraine had already been taken. Had oil factories fell into german hands ,the Nazis would have been fixed for good. They didn't need Moscow or Leningrad. As later events showed they didn't give a damn about their own population. All they needed were strong defence lines in the north and center and resources in the south. Slave labor was in abundance for expolitation, either by shiping it to Germany or in place. It would require building quickly an infrastructure to make it going. Time was essential, but now they would have all raw resources needed,perhaps some of the machinery could be saved.They would have labour and food, mostly oil, which was prizeless.Nothing needed to be transported and overstretched.It comes down to capabilties of german armies to keep Russians at bay and settin up pretty fast industry in the south. It was all Hitler had left when he moved the offensive south, but it was still plenty. It was easier to think of crashing the enemy althogether in 1941 without the burden of expierience of what followed, but the enemy wouldnt disapear. Even with the success of Moscow and Leningrad. It would simply move east and south to regroup. Much of the south with oil would still be in Russian hands. In the long term the south with all its resources would pay more than Moscow and Leningrad together. The operation Blau despite having been introduced as an alternative after setback in Moscow and Leningrad could have been the primary objective, replacing Barbarossa. Besides an alternative timeline and alternate chain of events, it was hardly posssible. I don't think that any german top head was cosidering it in 1941. In 1942 it was born out of the blue, yet it was a good one, and much more realistic than Barbarossa.
 
1) Germany was not playing a fair game with the USSR. The Germans didn't have the ability under Hitler to sign a treaty and stick to it.

2) The Soviets were very cautious and only made their moves after the Nazis made theirs, there is a huge difference between the two totalitarian regimes. Not that people intent on making comparisons that don't exist are deterred by this.

3) Operation Blue was doomed before it started. Focusing on Stalingrad is itself a sign of how badly Blue failed.
 

b12ox

Banned
When you crank out the numbers, the whole war was doomed. I am trying to find some merit in Blau. It had more chances to suceed, eventually, than Barbarossa. They didn't need the north or Moscow. The south would be enough; as lebensraum. It had everything Germans needed. Take the south, start quickly exploiting it, build defence lines in the north and Belorussia, and wait for the Russians. Having the South secured would render the numbers, people, oil, resources, everything. Beating then up on all fronts would give them the same. The Russians would just relocate. They would achieve more with Blau then with Barbarossa, keeping the offensive in one place.
 
Stalingrad may have been a soviet victory, but it sure cost them, they lost more than 4,000 tanks (compared to ~1,500 German ones), more than 15,500 guns (compared to ~6,000 German ones) and more than 2,500 aircraft (compared to ~900 German ones). Of course, they were pushing more stuff out as well, but still...

Soviet Union wiped out strongest German field Army. Something until then nobody had done. And remember, this wasn't 1945 or even 1944 when Germany was recruiting teenagers and old folks.
 
When you crank out the numbers, the whole war was doomed. I am trying to find some merit in Blau. It had more chances to suceed, eventually, than Barbarossa. They didn't need the north or Moscow. The south would be enough; as lebensraum. It had everything Germans needed. Take the south, start quickly exploiting it, build defence lines in the north and Belorussia, and wait for the Russians. Having the South secured would render the numbers, people, oil, resources, everything. Beating then up on all fronts would give them the same. The Russians would just relocate. They would achieve more with Blau then with Barbarossa, keeping the offensive in one place.

It actually had far less because the losses of Barbarossa meant Blau never had a chance in Hell. No logistics, not enough troops even using Italians and Romanians to paper over German losses.....
 

b12ox

Banned
So you recon Blau in place of Barbarossa had a chance to succeed. Just on paper cause in reality of 1941 it was absent.As i said earlier, they didn't need Moscow or the north.
 
So you recon Blau in place of Barbarossa had a chance to succeed. Just on paper cause in reality of 1941 it was absent.As i said earlier, they didn't need Moscow or the north.

Does the words "it had not a chance in Hell to succeed" mean something in your English it doesn't mean in mine? Neither Barbarossa nor Blau ever were going to work on their own terms, Barbarossa had more of a chance than Blau did only because the German army was at its wartime peak when they began raping, stealing, and butchering their way across and through the USSR.
 

b12ox

Banned
because Barbarossa was chosen it does not mean it was the best option. Not even back then. the Nazis looked at it through ideological and racial glasses. That was their problem which they refused to correct in favour of just making the war.
 
because Barbarossa was chosen it does not mean it was the best option. Not even back then. the Nazis looked at it through ideological and racial glasses. That was their problem which they refused to correct in favour of just making the war.

It depends. Barbarossa was launched at best time for Germany, when their armies were at the peak and SU was still recovering from purges and at the moment when it was being reequiped. A year later Red army would be in far better position. A year early France would still be around. If Germany was going to attack, 1941 was the time to do it.
 
Stalingrad may have been a soviet victory, but it sure cost them, they lost more than 4,000 tanks (compared to ~1,500 German ones), more than 15,500 guns (compared to ~6,000 German ones) and more than 2,500 aircraft (compared to ~900 German ones). Of course, they were pushing more stuff out as well, but still...

After the reliefeffort failed, why didnt the Red Army just sit around Stalingrad starving the 6th army out instead of attacking it as often as they did?
 
because Barbarossa was chosen it does not mean it was the best option. Not even back then. the Nazis looked at it through ideological and racial glasses. That was their problem which they refused to correct in favour of just making the war.

Actually it was the only option given the self-inflicted dilemma the Nazis imposed on themselves.
 
Top