I assume they cut off Soviet land access to the Caucasus while they themselves (try to) take the most important oil fields there (Maikop, Grozny, Baku). Would they be successful in these endeavors? Would constant supply of oil while denying it to Soviets let Germany win the war in the East? I also assume Hitler ITTL gives the Army Group South priority over the Army Group Center and North to make this possible.
WI: The Germans decided to encircle and besiege Stalingrad?
- Thread starter Gwachiko
- Start date
In the event of the former Stalingrad falls in the summer of 1942 with little effort. The worst case scenario for the Allies after that is that Stalin orders futile premature counteroffensives to retake it and burns through his reserves, forcing the Soviets to make peace, at least temporarily, to regain their strength. That would make for a messy war for the British and the Americans if they decide to press on. I wrote a TL on the topic which can be found here.
History Learner
Banned
It's a major industrial center (20% of Soviet tank production), a natural defensive angle to anchor on as it's along a major river and said major river is one of the main arteries of the Soviet Union at least for grains and other foodstuffs. Adding in its morale value as "Stalin's City", and it's impossible to ignore, both from its own value and its value as aiding Fall Blau's objectives by anchoring their flank.
Last edited:
By the time Battle for Stalingrad ended tank production at the city and whatever production there was gone. Stalingrad plant produced tanks basically till last minute, they badically stopped when Germans entered plant. Germans were shelling and attackin river traffic during battle anyway.
Bigger question is as Onkel Willie said what will Stalin do after it falls and how long it will take to get Germans out of there.
History Learner
Banned
Pretty much the point; fighting the battle impaired their production. As for the city's location, shelling and aircraft attacks aren't as effective as being able to have a fortified position directly along the Volga, especially given that the Luftwaffe was overtaxed as is. Furthermore, allowing the Soviets to have a major base unmolested on the Western side of the river, from which they could build up in and then launch an offensive on the exposed German flank, is a non-starter.
If Stalingrad falls and the Germans hold their ground into '43, then the Soviets collapse; Soviet food production and manpower foretells this.
History Learner
Banned
Germans basically hold Stalingrad till 1943 and Soviets survived.
You're not wrong technically, so my bad for not being more specific; if the Wehrmacht had held out in force in the North Caucasus region over the course of 1943, then the Soviet state will collapse due to starvation.
If Volga was last line of German advence there is still possibility it will not. They still could be supplied by L-L from Iran, North as well as through Vladivostok. But for sure many more Russians as well as others nationalities would die.
History Learner
Banned
Soviet food production in 1943 collapsed to 37% of the 1940 level, which was even lower than the 1942 level (38% of '40 level) despite the recapture of the North Caucasus and Eastern Ukraine. Rations were cut to the lowest possible level for the civilians, implying that all Lend Lease food was going to the Red Army and mass starvation was beginning in the cities, particularly in the Urals where they got the double hit of the overall decline in food production but also the failure of local potato crops. Simply put, they couldn't afford for the Germans to retain the their Fall Blau positions in 1943, otherwise they get starved into submission, as there was no more room to maneuver on the issue. LL couldn't address the problem either, as the Benegal famines showed there simply wasn't enough shipping available, nor do I think the U.S. even had the ability to supply that much food with such short notice (They were already shipping out about 40% of their production, IIRC).
Well recapture of Eastern Ukraine probably didn’t bring much food anyway but increased population to feed. But I guess we do not have numbers how much food supplies they gained by liberation of Eastern Ukraine. Especially as Easter Ukraine was liberated in second half of 1943. Whatever grew there was already eaten by Germans.
With Manstein implementing Scorched Earth policy during retreat Soviets actually needed to feed more population then before.
It was nicely described by Paul Carell in his Scortched Earth.
History Learner
Banned
Substantial portions were recovered in the early weeks of 1943 so I don't think Manstein was able to do much with regards to scorched earth given the planting season had yet to happen. North Caucasus, however, was recovered in full in time for the aforementioned planting and thus probably explains why overall Soviet production only declined by 1% despite the Potato crop failures in the Ural region.
The Bread of Affliction: The Food Supply in the USSR during World War II, by William Moskoff -
"The central fact behind the increased importance of the collective farm market was the drastic drop in food production, especially in 1942 and 1943, and the diminished proportion that went to the civilians. In 1943 overall agricultural production was only 38 percent of the 1940 level. In 1943, however, the Red Army began to recapture agricultural areas of the Ukraine, Belorussia, and the Caucasus and by the next year, 1944, agricultural output had risen to 54 percent of the 1940 level. Not surprisingly, the collapse of the food economy led to astonishing increases in prices. The most rapid rate [Emphasis by author] of increase in prices took place in 1942 and began to taper off in mid-1943."
As you can see, the moment the Heer pushes the Soviets out of Ukraine and claim the Caucasus, the food situation begins to collapse; it is only halted due to the successes of the Soviet counter-offensives in the Winter, which reclaim much of the aforementioned territory. Without the reclamation, the situation would undoubtedly get worse and wasn't sustainable as is, given that starvation deaths were beginning to mount in '43 with production what it was.
It's HIS city, fairlure to hold and protect it is treason, the enemies of the state will not have much time left to fear Stalins wreath!
That said purging the army during the war is probably the worst possible time for something like that, no amount of lend lease or lack of winter clothes by the Germans could save the USSR in that case.
How much did Stalin really care about the fate of Tsaritsyn? Remember, the man let the Nazis do their bidding with his son. Symbols may not have meant so much to him. Kiev and Minsk were symbolic defeats that Stalin shrugged off. On Leningrad, Stalin was fortunate that the city held out, but loss of the city would not have ended the war.
Protecting the Volga as a natural barrier is a legitimate strategy. Bleeding the Germans dry at Stalingrad is a legitimate strategy if you're the Soviets. But holding Stalingrad at all costs was not strategically necessary for the USSR. If the city had been encircled and besieged then it is really no big loss for the Russians. Still, I think the siege would have been lengthy and bloody. Lengthier, perhaps, than the OTL battle, although not bloodier. Stalingrad could easily be resupplied across the Volga.
Cryhavoc101
Donor
Whatever happens in Stalingrad is unlikely to happen quickly and the Russians still drop the Uranus Hammer in November and follow it up with Saturn/little Saturn the following month - and the whole Case Blue campaign still fails hard
The Axis forces remain overstretched with no clue as to the seriousness of their prediciment and the true strength of the coming Russian counter attacks regardless of what happens in Stalingrad in the greater scheme of things.
The Axis forces remain overstretched with no clue as to the seriousness of their prediciment and the true strength of the coming Russian counter attacks regardless of what happens in Stalingrad in the greater scheme of things.
Germans basically hold Stalingrad till 1943 and Soviets survived.
They were never able to cut the Volga, though. That was the key thing.
To the OP; I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but if you mean circle around the Soviet pocket on the western bank and try to push them into the Volga that was what they did. If you mean a true encirclement, that would require crossing the Volga and encircling them from behind, which they certainly wouldn't be capable of if they couldn't just straight take the city IOTL. Perhaps I misunderstand.
I guess this would depend on the answer to the OP’s question?
Could they encircle Stalingrad? This means it does not Fall on the march, but the Germans dont just send soldiers into the meet grinder. If they succeed in the encirclement they would also likely eliminate the bridgeheads for Uranus and wouldn’t need that large a force in the city.
Eg, more towards Baku and the flasks?