What happens if Germany wins at Stalingrad?

[ASDFG56]

What would the ramifications be if the Germans successfully took Stalingrad? Would they be able to take the Caucusus or would their lines be over extended to the point of easily being cut by the Red Army? How would this effect the war effort on both sides?

Ignore how they do it, just assume they somehow managed a victory.

 

[Evil Crusader]

In WW2, especially in the East Europe Theater, you cannot talk tactics without logistics.

Winning it early-ish is very different from winning it very late, as a last send-off à la Battle of the Bulge.

 

[The Red]

Ignore how they do it, just assume they somehow managed a victory.

It's hard to answer any of your other questions without any specifics.

 

[starman]

What would the ramifications be if the Germans successfully took Stalingrad?

It would've helped very little except as a propaganda triumph. Adolf wanted to take the city named after Stalin. From a military point of view, taking Stalingrad was unnecessary and wasteful. By mid September 1942 the city already had been taken in a strategic sense, since it no longer functioned as an armament production center and Soviet traffic on the Volga had been halted by the guns of 16th Panzer at Rynok.

Would they be able to take the Caucusus...

They would've been in a far better position to take the Caucasius oilfields had Army Group A's drive on them received supply priority, instead of B's attempt to take Stalingrad.

....or would their lines be over extended to the point of easily being cut by the Red Army?

Had Stalingrad been contained instead of taken, it would've meant stronger defenses on the Don flank, in the OTL stripped of much force to fight the useless battle.

 

[ASDFG56]

It would've helped very little except as a propaganda triumph. Adolf wanted to take the city named after Stalin. From a military point of view, taking Stalingrad was unnecessary and wasteful. By mid September 1942 the city already had been taken a strategic sense, since it no longer functioned as an armament production center and Soviet traffic on the Volga had been halted by the guns of 16th Panzer at Rynok.



They would've been in a far better position to take the Caucasius oilfields had Army Group A's drive on them received supply priority, instead of B's attempt to take Stalingrad.



Had Stalingrad been contained instead of taken, it would've meant stronger defenses on the Don flank, in the OTL stripped of much force to fight the useless battle.

This is what I figured. The reason I asked this question in the first place is I've noticed that a lot of Axis Victory TLs tend to use a German victory at Stalingrad as the main POD, which has always struck me as borderline ASB. Now I'm relegating it to the full ASB bin.

 

[dmz23]

Say Hitler sticks to the original Plan Blau and does not divide his armies in August 1942, then its highly likely that the added weight of men, armor, aircraft and accumulated time leads to Stalingrad falling in the initial assault in Mid-September. Paulus himself believed that the fighting in Stalingrad would take ten days and a further 14 days would be required for 're-grouping' which puts a thrust south into early October. Further time would have to be put aside for clearing the Soviet bridgeheads over the R.Don which may or may not push a Caucasus offensive even further into Mid-October.
Regardless, its likely that Maikop and possibly Grozny at the least are captured by December 42. However, Baku is far too distant. Not only that but many of the mountain passes through the High Caucasus and along the Black Sea Coast are impassable due to Weather conditions from late September. Hitler is going to be ticked off but I think that given the distances involved, a campaign to seize Baku is viable only in the Spring of 1943. Even then, it would be no walk in the park, the Soviets are on excellent defensive terrain in the hilly Caucasus and are being boosted up with lend-lease tanks, aircraft etc and presumably anything that can shipped to Baku via the Caspian or Persian route directly. OTL Baku had substantial defensive belts ( 7-8 if I recall) and you can bet that any German delay in reaching the city will only allow the Soviets to increase the strength of those defenses. Hitler will insist on capturing Baku and its oilfields as intact as possible which will force his armies to storm these defenses whilst at the end of a far more painfully thin logistical trail than anything they fought on in OTL. Its entirely possible that it is taken but the fighting for Baku might resemble the fighting at Sevastopol more than anything else which will certainly exhaust the German armies dealing with it and eat into opportunities for offensives elsewhere.
Of course, any hypothetical attack toward Baku, would also have to include the fact that the Soviets will counter-attack somewhere in the Winter of 42-43 and that they have an extra 1 million+ troops to play around with given that Operation Uranus is probably butterflied away with an early capture of Stalingrad. The extra men might be thrown into Zhukov's Operation Mars and might force a further withdrawal by Army Group Centre or they may be chucked toward Leningrad or possibly even Rostov. All this would have to be dealt with before operations in the Caucasus could be concluded.

 

[thaddeus]

This is what I figured. The reason I asked this question in the first place is I've noticed that a lot of Axis Victory TLs tend to use a German victory at Stalingrad as the main POD, which has always struck me as borderline ASB. Now I'm relegating it to the full ASB bin.

think PODs center around Stalingrad because the losses of German troops there make a victory over USSR nearly impossible.

 

[ivanotter]

I think I read somewhere that Caucasus - and specifically Baku - supplied some 80% of all Soviet oil.

Taking Stalingrad on the run in August might have been possible, but it should have been possible to cut the pipe lines from Baku and indeed do something on the Caspian sea.

Bombing Baku is difficult - distance and it is a target scattered across some amount of square km.

Whether it is possible to leave Stalingrad alone without getting East of Stalingrad is a good question. Sure, Stalingrad was not an industrial powerhouse in September, but exposing a flank to the garrison is also not a great idea.

If Stalingrad can be 'captured' in August, the entire situation in Caucasus will be vastly different.

But it all comes down to the oil in Baku after all. It has to be captured in '42 for Germany to knock out USSR.

 

[UnaiB]

@wiking @ObssesedNuker I invoke you

 

[ObssesedNuker]

@wiking @ObssesedNuker I invoke you

It's a blow to the USSR. Whether it's irrecoverable blow is an unknown. Germany might pick up Grozny as a result, but driving on Baku in '42 is certainly out of the question. Whether it can hold it's position through the winter is uncertain: the Volga line was logistically problematic for them to mount a defense even without the fighting in Stalingrad, yet the fact the Soviets have their own continuing tactical-operational problem means whether a offensive through their lines in November or December succeeds is not guaranteed.

Best case for the USSR, their winter offensive still breaks the Germans Volga-Don line during the winter and forces them to withdraw from the Caucasus as per OTL. That means a '43, and ultimately a war which is largely similar to OTL, just somewhat more favorable to the Germans.

Worst case, their winter offensive turns into a second Operation Mars, in which case the Germans would be in the position to push on and take Baku in the spring, followed by Germany swinging the focus back to Leningrad and Moscow in 1943, and Stavka would then have far more pressing problems (both militarily and economically) to deal with than mounting a new offensive to retake the Caucasus.

So Germany successfully taking Stalingrad isn't a automatic win, but it increases the odds.

 

[Falk]

A German victory at Stalingrad might finally convince Turkey to join the axis. I wonder what the ramifications of that would be.

 

[hzn5pk]

To me successful Stalingrad capture also means a successful defense of the ensuing Soviet offensive in winter 1942.

It would be bad for Turkey to join axis as long as the British own the Med. By this point the British are in firm control of Egypt as they win at second El Alamein and the Americans land in the west with Torch.
The 9th Army in Palestine should be enough to hold off Turkey.

In the Pac, US goes through with Guadalcanal after Midway.

Ultimately, the allies are victorious and the East/West line is shifted to the East some.

1943

The Allies mop up N Africa in '43, the Germans might even conduct a better fighting withdrawl and evacuation of Tunisia

After Tunisia, the allies would have the option of Sicily or Cyprus (Cyprus to prepare for Anatolia landings), Allies opt for Sicily since it is right there while building up in Iraq and Palestine. US infantry divisions that are in the Pacific or tagged for the Pac might be rerouted to the Middle East for this. So that would mean that Operation Cartwheel would be limited to US Marine activity. So US Marines have choice of Cartwheel or Tarawa. Nimitz chooses Tarawa. Cartwheel is not 100% cancelled, just scaled back to placing air fields in range of Rabaul and advancing more slowly in New Guinea. One of the main efforts in the Pacific in 1943 is attacking Japanese supply routes.

The big question would be what would the Germans, do they go South to complete Baku capture, center to Moscow or clear up the North in Leningrad. They choose South and North and capture Baku and Leningrad. Soviets spike oil fields in Baku and Allied bombers operating from Persian gulf region ensure that they remain closed off.

Soviets '43 - build up defensive forces in center. Moscow is secure and protected. Stalin is in it for the long haul. Allied supplies are shipped through Iran and central Asia.

Aid to the Chinese may be less than OTL. The Ledo road may be delayed for logistic improvements in Iran and Central Asia. So China gets a little less supplies as supplies are diverted to Russia and Middle East build up.

Allies conduct Operation Husky to liberate Sicily followed up by both landings on Italy and Cyprus. Italy is scaled back some with objective of getting toe hold in Southern Italy. Cyprus is wrapped up early 1944.

1944

Germans go for all out, knock out offensive against Moscow - Soviets hold

Allies land all along Turkey, free up Dardanelles this is in conjunction with advances from Iraq and Syria. Turkey folds and switches sides.

Latter part of 1944, allies land in Crimea

Italy is a slog it out affair in southern Italy, allies move up peninsula some

Pac - Allies land in Saipan, Guam, Tinian, and Rota - secure major naval victory in battle of Philipine Sea (Marianas Turkey shoot)

1945

Russians recapture Caucus area as Allies make advances in Ukraine, Germans forces trapped between two. American supplies flow into Ukraine after Odessa is taken as well.

Allies also land in Dalmatian coast.

In Pac - US Marines capture Iwo Jima and Marcus islands. Japan is being bombed by B-29's from Marianas backed up by P-51's from Iwo.

Nukes still drop on Japan, four cities are obliterated in 1945

Chinese build up for offensive

1946

Germans on defensive as Russians retake all previous Soviet ground while Allies take Eastern Europe, land further up the Italian peninsula and in southern France. Some nukes are dropped in Germany

Italy is knocked out as central Italy is in Allied control. Northern Italy is holding out as German puppet.

In Pac - US Marines land on Okinawa to further isolate Japan.

China is on offensive and makes gains in southern, central, and eastern China

1947

Germany and Japan fold as landings occur in Northern France as allies advance from southern France, Italy and Eastern Europe (combined Soviet-American offensive)

In Pac - US marines land in Korea as Chinese and Soviet forces take Manchuria

In peace,
Soviets control 1940 line in Poland and Baltics, are given East Prussia (OTL Kaliningrad area) and that is it. Ukraine is given back to Soviets.
Soviets have Berlin occupation zone surrounded by Allied Germany

Friendly allied governments are placed in
Poland, borders are set as OTL
Czechoslovakia
Bulgaria
Romania
Hungary
Yugoslavia
and eventually Germany

In Pac - there is one Korea with a western friendly government
Chinese Nationalists are in way better position to finally defeat the Chinese communists in 1949
Philipines granted immediate independence after war, maintain awesome relationship with USA

WWII is bloodier but the Cold War is way less severe

Russians and especially Ukrainians are grateful for direct American assistance. A monument is constructed near Kiev for the heroes of the Red and American armies. Cold war tensions are lighter as American aid is sent after war to help rebuild Soviet Union.

France is a little put back as they did not like being lower on the list to liberate but do not see as much collateral damage as OTL.

Question as to British and French colonialism in Africa and Asia - For sure India and Pakistan see independence. Perhaps with less threat of Communism and the Communist Chinese and Soviet threat, a unoted, independent Vietnam emerges under Ho Chi Mihn

 

[History Learner]

I'm also going to echo the above poster in that a victory at Stalingrad, which was more of a campaign than just the city battle, requires a victory in the winter offensives; something like 95% of the city was held by the Germans, so if "taking" the city is the only metric, then that was accomplished IOTL. I've covered the strategies and likely ramifications of a victory before in detail here. For a condensed version of the link:

There's two ways to win Stalingrad in my estimation.

The first is that Sixth Army's LI Corps cuts the Kalach-Stalingrad railroad line near Novyi Rogachik, encircling 62nd and 64th Armies in their entirety and thus leaving Stalingrad defenseless and secured by the start of September. Resources can then be used to clean up Soviet holdouts along the Don River and by the time the Soviets can begin shifting forces in earnest to the region the Axis will be on well fortified river lines, rested and with good logistics. Given the Romanians defeated the October Soviet offensive handily and gave a good account of themselves in November by all measures, no doubt them, the Italians and 6th Army can successfully hold these lines through the winter. Further South, if von Kleist is prevented from diverting both the III Panzerkorps and the LVII Panzerkorps to Tuapse, Grozny will fall and the Baku-Astrakhan railway is cut.

The second is, after the successful Romanian defensive action in October, their request for German reinforcements to launch counter-attacks against the now exhausted Soviet lodgements over the Don is granted instead of further efforts within Stalingrad itself as per IOTL. The Soviet pockets get eliminated and without them the Soviet offensive is likely pushed back weeks if not months, and further now has to be done by crossing a major river against fortified defenders without the benefit of having their logistics stockpile already over the river. Given the capabilities of the Romanians, they could easily handle such an offensive.

As for ramifications of either, the fuel situation is not what I mainly look at because food is the more critical issue. Farm production in 1942 and 1943 dropped to 38% and 37% of 1940 totals, despite 1943 seeing the recapture of the Kuban and Eastern Ukraine. In the absence of such reclamation of territory, the Soviets likely slip into outright starvation, as that year already saw high mortality with starvation as the cause and crop failures elsewhere (In particular, the Urals with potatoes).

 

[Johnrankins]

I think I read somewhere that Caucasus - and specifically Baku - supplied some 80% of all Soviet oil.

Taking Stalingrad on the run in August might have been possible, but it should have been possible to cut the pipe lines from Baku and indeed do something on the Caspian sea.

It is more going to help the Germans directly than hurt the Soviets directly. The US has plenty of oil at this point in history and would export more of it to the USSR.

 

[Mr.Gatsby]

What would the ramifications be if the Germans successfully took Stalingrad? Would they be able to take the Caucusus or would their lines be over extended to the point of easily being cut by the Red Army? How would this effect the war effort on both sides?

Ignore how they do it, just assume they somehow managed a victory.

They would still lose the war, but I think it might extend the war for awhile. People must remember that the soviets were fighting a war for there very survival and would most likely fight to the last man. The biggest thing if the war lasted on is that we might see use of nuclear weapons of Germany.

 

[sendô]

Sorry to be a pedant, but the Germans did "take" Stalingrad - the problem was they had over extended their lines, had weak armies guarding the flanks and were then counter-attacked and surrounded.

Stalingrad was seen as an important turning point, because it was the first major encirclement victory for the Soviets, and because of the loss of an entire German army. Strategically the city itself was more or less irrelevant - a better POD would be for Paulus to not get sucked into the city itself, or for Hitler to somehow not attribute such priority to the place merely due to it's name. The strategic relevance of the main push in summer 42 being on the southern flank was to take the Caucasian oil fields. 6th army was meant to screen and protect the occupation of that area.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

The Soviet pockets get eliminated and without them the Soviet offensive is likely pushed back weeks if not months, and further now has to be done by crossing a major river against fortified defenders without the benefit of having their logisticsstockpile already over the river. Given thecapabilities of the Romanians, they could easily handle such an offensive.

Eh... all the Russians have to do there is wait until the river freezes solid at the start of December, after which it’s no more a barrier, logistically or militarily, then the open steppe and the Romanians would then go down the same as they did OTL. What they really need are some serious German reinforcements...

As for ramifications of either, the fuel situation is not what I mainly look at because food is the more critical issue. Farm production in 1942 and 1943 dropped to 38% and 37% of 1940 totals, despite 1943 seeing the recapture of the Kuban and Eastern Ukraine. In the absence of such reclamation of territory, the Soviets likely slip into outright starvation, as that year already saw high mortality with starvation as the cause and crop failures elsewhere (In particular, the Urals with potatoes).

As long as lend-lease isn’t affected, which it might be, mass starvation probably isn’t in the cards. While the harvest of ‘43 was even worse then that of 1942 (although your figure for ‘42 are a bit lower then what I recall), the food situation in Russia improved from Spring ‘43 onwards anyways, with the preponderance of starvation related deaths occurring during the prior ‘42/‘43 winter, due to shipments of American food supplies. The reclamation of Kuban and Eastern Ukraine simply occurred too late in the year to be of use in the ‘43 harvest.

As for delay in liberation impacting further crop growths... well, that depends. Planting and Harvest season in that part of Europe is rather late and intervals short: May/June and August/September. Additionally, a lot of the fields liberated in Southern Russia were left unworked in ‘43 and put back into service only in ‘44. This all means a six months delay in the liberation of East Ukraine and Kuban areas (so their retaken in March/April ‘44 instead of September/November ‘43) probably would still see food production significantly rise in ‘44, since their back in Soviet hands before the planting season. A year’s delay, on the other hand, would likely see the ‘44 production be much closer to ‘43 levels, although still some rise as the Southern Russian fields are put back into use.

 

[Sol Zagato]

I think I read somewhere that Caucasus - and specifically Baku - supplied some 80% of all Soviet oil.

The pipelines were cut (most relevantly Baku-Rostov) in OTL. What they failed to do was cut the Baku-Astrakhan railroad.

Taking Stalingrad on the run in August might have been possible, but it should have been possible to cut the pipe lines from Baku and indeed do something on the Caspian sea.

Bombing Baku is difficult - distance and it is a target scattered across some amount of square km.

Whether it is possible to leave Stalingrad alone without getting East of Stalingrad is a good question. Sure, Stalingrad was not an industrial powerhouse in September, but exposing a flank to the garrison is also not a great idea.

If Stalingrad can be 'captured' in August, the entire situation in Caucasus will be vastly different.

But it all comes down to the oil in Baku after all. It has to be captured in '42 for Germany to knock out USSR.

I continue to venture that interdicting the oil transport routes decisively in '42 gives Germany a chance at 'winning' (ie. looking like victors until the US brings the nukes, the obtaining at best stalemate).

 

[marathag]

Bombing Baku is difficult - distance and it is a target scattered across some amount of square km.

It's easier than you realize.

Soviet Oiltanks were not common as you think, oil was stored in open air pools at times. Pipelines leaked all over, much of the ground was(and still is) saturated to bedrock with crude. Flare pipe all over, so easy to spot at night.

It's an easy target, that is, if the Luftwaffe had even the RAF Bomber Command of 1940-- that they didn't

 

[ivanotter]

Ah, ok. I see that. I was comparing it a bit to the Iraq oil fields of later years.

IF US oil to USSR had to be transported across the pacific it would have to be on railroad to where it was needed.

First of all: the tanker situation: I think there was a distinct lack of tankers in 1942
Railway: rather clogged or in enemy hands

Does it then make the oil situation from Baku even more critical?