Stalingrad be Soviet Verdun

anyone who knows WW1 knows that verdun was intended to bleed the french white, though this only succeeded in weakening the german army. what if Stalingrad becomes a more successful version of Verdun for the soviets? How could this happen? what would the effects on the eastern front be? western front?
 

Deleted member 1487

anyone who knows WW1 knows that verdun was intended to bleed the french white, though this only succeeded in weakening the german army. what if Stalingrad becomes a more successful version of Verdun for the soviets? How could this happen? what would the effects on the eastern front be? western front?
I mean it was Verdun IOTL, they just had a lot more manpower to fight and win such an attrition battle. I suppose the way it could have been different is if the city is taken on the march and Stalin goes nuts and orders counterattacks that destroy his armies, but leaves the German forces more intact and able to break off flank attacks. Then bad things happen if the Germans are able to maintain their positions on the Don and Volga into 1943 and Soviet forces are chewed up at Rzhev and Stalingrad that winter.
 
I mean it was Verdun IOTL, they just had a lot more manpower to fight and win such an attrition battle. I suppose the way it could have been different is if the city is taken on the march and Stalin goes nuts and orders counterattacks that destroy his armies, but leaves the German forces more intact and able to break off flank attacks. Then bad things happen if the Germans are able to maintain their positions on the Don and Volga into 1943 and Soviet forces are chewed up at Rzhev and Stalingrad that winter.

Yeah I meant as in the battle does what the original Verdun intended, bleed the soviets white. Stalin would definately try to retake the city, diverting critical troops from places like Kursk, Moscow, and Leningrad for a not really strategic city that is important because it's his namesake.

Obviously, this would lead to a somewhat longer WW2, but I do beleive (myself, someone else can tell me wrong) that it would lead to the end of WW2 in 1946 with Europe under more Allied control than OTL due the soviets running on empty after Stalingrad. but that's just me, what does everyone else think.
 

Deleted member 1487

Yeah I meant as in the battle does what the original Verdun intended, bleed the soviets white. Stalin would definately try to retake the city, diverting critical troops from places like Kursk, Moscow, and Leningrad for a not really strategic city that is important because it's his namesake.

Obviously, this would lead to a somewhat longer WW2, but I do beleive (myself, someone else can tell me wrong) that it would lead to the end of WW2 in 1946 with Europe under more Allied control than OTL due the soviets running on empty after Stalingrad. but that's just me, what does everyone else think.
Well yeah if the Soviets are really bled out (only way that happens is if the Germans maintain their position on the Volga-Don into 1943 and aren't encircled as a result), stemming from famine setting in because Ukraine is not liberated on time and the 4 million men recruited from territories liberated in 1943-45 aren't able to be recruited on time, then of course the Wallies will liberate more, especially in the longer run, but at much greater cost in the lives of their soldiers and potentially some A-bombs on Germany for their troubles.
 

RousseauX

Donor
anyone who knows WW1 knows that verdun was intended to bleed the french white, though this only succeeded in weakening the german army. what if Stalingrad becomes a more successful version of Verdun for the soviets? How could this happen? what would the effects on the eastern front be? western front?
The problem is that the Germans can't attrition the soviets at a good enough ratio so that the soviets bleed to white before the germans do

with france yeah you can do it cuz germany has more people than france does but the soviets have way more people than the germans do and while the germans are better man for man vs soviets in 1942-43 they aren't that good against them
 
Well yeah if the Soviets are really bled out (only way that happens is if the Germans maintain their position on the Volga-Don into 1943 and aren't encircled as a result), stemming from famine setting in because Ukraine is not liberated on time and the 4 million men recruited from territories liberated in 1943-45 aren't able to be recruited on time, then of course the Wallies will liberate more, especially in the longer run, but at much greater cost in the lives of their soldiers and potentially some A-bombs on Germany for their troubles.

and a potential former ally turn enemy as stalin beleived that the wallies would wait till the last russian then invade Europe which would be this scenario. Stalin would be livid and would go to war with the allies out of anger for the 'betrayal' of the allies, leading to a much more drawn out land war that could either lead to A) lead to OTL Europe after WW2, B) Europe overrun by soviets (unlikely if the soviets are bled white at stalingrad) or C) a divided Russia (west of Urals is ally puppet democracy, east is soviets) eiether way, the future would be a lot darker if this happened. in fact someone, not me as I am already writing 2 as of Right now., could write a timeline on this happening.
 
The problem is that the Germans can't attrition the soviets at a good enough ratio so that the soviets bleed to white before the germans do

with france yeah you can do it cuz germany has more people than france does but the soviets have way more people than the germans do and while the germans are better man for man vs soviets in 1942-43 they aren't that good against them

what if they were able to take it in the march and then fortify it to the point where attacking it would be nigh suicide but stalin does it anyways. that is, from what I've looked at prior to stalingrad, pretty likely.
 

Deleted member 1487

The problem is that the Germans can't attrition the soviets at a good enough ratio so that the soviets bleed to white before the germans do

with france yeah you can do it cuz germany has more people than france does but the soviets have way more people than the germans do and while the germans are better man for man vs soviets in 1942-43 they aren't that good against them
If they take the city on the march they'd do a lot better fighting an attritional battle outside the city; Soviet forces attacked attacked outside of the city repeatedly to distract the Germans from their offensives inside and they suffered horribly, with much more lopsided casualty ratios than the fighting inside the city (already pretty bad IOTL). If Stalin freaks out and rather than conserving forces being built up for the winter offensive instead throw them against Axis defenses outside the city in order to take it back, then those battles will be much worse for the Soviets than defending in the city...and the Germans won't be distracted by fighting in the city either, so could devote their air power and forces to beating off the attack Soviet forces.
 
Top