Could the russians do scorched earth on stalingrad and the oil fields on the caucasus?

Hello there !
I'd like to ask a general question for you more studied people here.
I'm in no way a scholar of any kind of world war's, but I was seeing a wwii documentary and wondered to myself if the russians could have burned/left stalingrad and disabled the oil fields on the caucasus upon german advance.
Would the aftermath be more or less the same, with germans having their supply lines cut off, and forcing to surrender after winter?

 

To what I have read the Soviets started the burning the ground down 1941. As well the oik fields in the northern Caucasus were destroyed with concrete. Göring wondered if the oil fields could be opened with corkscrews?

 

If the Russians destroyed much of their own oil supplies, would it have hurt their war effort?

 

As K-P noted, the Russians did destroy resources in areas they were compelled to retreat from, but the suggestion here seems to be that they should pre-emptively fall back in the face of German attack, scorching the earth as they went. Not sure I see the benefit of that. Anything that's damaged can be repaired if the Germans are left in occupation long enough. Lack of supplies is always an issue, but it's most critical if the Germans are being made to fight.

One positive change from 1941 to 1942 was that the Russians abandoned the "hold at all costs" mentality that had led to so many troops cut off and captured, but that meant they had more troops available when the time came to counterattack. Stalin, Zhukov, and the rest knew that at some point they would have to take the offensive.

The city of Stalingrad was not critical in and of itself. Like most major cities, it had some valuable industries, but possessing it or not was not going to decide the course of the war. It became significant as the point where the Russians could tie the Germans down in a battle on their terms. And of course Hitler's determination not to give up the fight for "Stalin's city" set his armies up for disaster.

 

If the Russians did destroy most of their oil supplies, that would have seriously affected their war effort, correct?

 

I assume so. The Germans expected their conquest of the Caucasus to cripple the Soviet war machine, in addition to securing oil for their own use. Early in the war, when Russia and Germany were cooperating, the British tried to develop schemes to bomb the oil facilities around Baku, expecting that to have a significant impact.

I don't know that much about German plans, but I think they envisioned the Maikop oilfields as the primary ones for their own use. I know they assigned a unit of Brandenburger commandos to secure the facilities ahead of their armies, to prevent the Russians destroying them. Obviously it would have been more of a challenge to transport oil from Baku, so that may have been more a matter of denying the oil to the Soviets.

 

I recall reading the Soviets had massive reserves in Siberia in case they could not use the Baku oil. I am pretty sure the USSR would not give Baku to the Germans for free.

 

There are significant oil and natural gas reserves in Siberia, but I don't think the technology to exploit them had been developed yet in the 1940s. People today sometimes speculate that the Japanese could have invaded Siberia instead of the Far East to secure the resources they needed, but my understanding is that that wasn't possible at the time. Comments welcome.

 

After Khalkhin Gor, the Japanese Kwangtung Army was scared sh*tless of the Soviet Red Army. They were not eager for Round II. It was easier to fight the Chinese.

 

Other way around...The Kwangtung Army could not wait for a rematch. hence the Strike North and Strike South division. To bring the IJA onboard for the Strike South, they were promised that when the Pacific War successfully ended, in the summer of 1942, the IJA would be turned against the USSR some time in the late summer or early fall of 1942.

 

Thanks Takao. Wasn't aware of the Strike South and then Strike North strategy.

Wasn't China supposed to fall in a very short time too? Despite the disjointed Chinese command (warlord armies, Commies and the KMT), that didn't pan out and Japan found itself bogged down.

I read of Japanese who wanted to surrender to American PoWs in Manchuria. They'd rather be prisoners of the Americans instead of guests of Stalin.

 

I wonder why the Red Army handled Japan but couldn't take Finland?

 

Second line troops who expected to be greeted as liberators by their communist brethren in Finland (Finland had a civil war against internal communist who lost). When the snow came, the Soviets bogged down and the Finns had greater mobility with their skis. The Finns used that mobility to isolate and cut up Soviet units.

The Finns were also more prepared for winter warfare. Saunas or warming bunkers so they could defrost. Soviet invaders had no such things.

Was told by a Finn that when he was a child, they were very grateful to their men who fought in those two wars (Winter War and Continuation War) against the Soviets. Most of those vets are gone now.

 

Yes, Stalin believe the Red Army would be welcomed when they crossed the border.

 

Does that mean you agree?

 

Yes, I see it quite true to what happened.

 

..that seems to be a recurring idea.....most countries have at least 2, some many more, opposing groups.....so it's ''natural'' for invading countries to think at least 1 of those groups would welcome a foreign invasion to overturn the existing government ...same thought in the US for many decades

 

The USSR had even a symphony made By Tsaivchovsky for the taking of Helsinki. No use for the symphony. We managed to stop the Red Army. At least until March.

 

Tchaikovsky died in 1893...so, I don't think he would be writing any symphonies for the Soviets.

 

Dmitri Shostakovich? He composed one for the Siege of Leningrad.