operation barbarossa

Friedrich, Im almost 100% agreed with you. After failing to take Moscow, the chances of winning went sharply down, but a resounding victory at Stalingrad would have still messed up the soviets logistically and morally; after all, its called Stalingrad. After that, the soviets might have been willing to sue for peace.

Im of the opinion that failure at Moscow made victory for Germany very difficult to achieve, as the spritual and political center of the soviets remained intact, but Stalingrad pushed it over the edge, by saving the volga and boosting morale significantly. Kursk accelarated the defeat and ended any potential political leverage over the soviets, as well as giving them the definite strategic advantage.

 

Well, after Moscow, the stratigic failure was so bad that we had already lost WWII. Because then we did not have any chance to defeat the USSR. Let's not include then the disastrous campaign of 1942, because even eith a victory in the Volga and in the Caucasus the otcome would have been exactly the same, but perhaps a bit later...

 

Well, after Moscow, the stratigic failure was so bad that we had already lost WWII. Because then we did not have any chance to defeat the USSR. Let's not include then the disastrous campaign of 1942, because even eith a victory in the Volga and in the Caucasus the otcome would have been exactly the same, but perhaps a bit later...

 

Oh no!! THE dreaded DOUBLE POST!!!

 

hmm...but the volga was very important; its loss would be a failure and a major setback to the russians. I dont see Germany steamrolling Russia, but i can see stalin as possibly offering the germans very generous peace terms...like lots o' lebensraum.

 

Yes, dar Reich. The Volga and the Caucasus, as well as all Western Russia was extremely important, but they could bear it. We couldn't bear that attrition war.

Well, Carl, my mistake...

 

dar reich...nice touch, freidy.

But in hindsight, we know the Germans were unable to take the attrition after the failure of typhoon, but did the russians know that in '42? And if stalingrad, a major target both morally and strategically, fell, perhaps stalin would have panicked or the red army make some horrendous mistake in the midst of a retreat from the area and get hit hard again. Just my thoughts.

 

Well, perhaps daS Reich.

Stalin saw his homonimus city as a symbol, as well as the rest of the whole country. But it only meant that the largest of the German armies could be held and bleeded there. OK, Stalingrad is the key to the river Volga which has atrategic importance as well as having Stalingrad means that the back of HG A in the Caucasus is safe, although, the main point remains being Moscow and even losing the Caucasus and the Volga, the Red Army would have stilled going bigger and more powerful and counter attack other undefended sectors of the front. And we did not have enough material and hum,an resources to hold there. Just my 2 cents as well.